Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport

Capital Cities (Transport Costs)

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies the Greater London Transport Division of his Department has made of the comparative running costs of public transport in other European capital cities.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): None as such, but the division has access to a wide range of studies, including those undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and by International organisations.

Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Parisian contributes 40 per cent. in fares towards the running costs of public transport, while the Londoner contributes 60 per cent.? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman's Department recognised that a modern transport system needs public funds and that, without them it will decline, with all that that implies for the economy?

Mr. Fowler: It is clear that a modern transport system—whether in London or anywhere else—needs some support. We are discussing what form that support should take. The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the spending of yet more money, which can come only from taxpayers and ratepayers.

Mr. Booth: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his car sharing scheme shows no signs of solving the major problems that face London Transport? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the study commissioned by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows that the scheme's major effect has been to draw passengers away from the bus service and towards cars that would, in any case, be used? Is not the only solution to the major problems facing London's public transport system greater investment and a policy of lower fares?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has widened the question. Car sharing was never thought to be a complete solution to all the problems that face London and the rural areas. However, both in city and country areas, it contributes towards a solution. The Government have taken the restrictions off car sharing. Indeed, that is in line with the Labour Government's policy. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like to be reminded that the Labour Government pursued that policy.

Mr. Dover: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the London Transport executives gave evidence to the Select

Committee a few days ago which showed that 73 per cent. of the costs of public transport in London could be attributed to labour? Will my right hon. Friend try to get comparative figures for European cities?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. However, the operating costs of all passenger transport undertakings involve a high proportion of labour costs. The lesson, not only for London Transport but for all transport undertakings, is that we must place the highest premium on the best productivity that we can manage.

Mr. Spearing: Although I concede the Secretary of State's point that public support must come from rates or taxes, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British practice of putting a high proportion of costs on to the traveller is out of line with the practice in most countries and in most urban areas?

Mr. Fowler: It is out of line with what takes place in Paris. However, the hon. Gentleman should inquire of London businesses whether they wish a further addition to be made to their rate burden.

Mr. Spearing: Taxes.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may shout "taxes", but he should ask the taxpayers whether they want to pay even higher taxes than they do at present.

A6, Action Group, Leicestershire

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the Under-secretary of State's visit to Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, on 6 February to meet representatives of the A6 action group and local councillors; and what further action he envisages, following that meeting.

The Under-Secretary of State For Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The visit enabled me to see and hear about the very real problems of these villages. I shall now be considering whether room can be found for a bypass in the trunk road programme in the light of the needs of other towns.

Mr. Latham: Following my hon. and learned Friend's most helpful visit, which was much appreciated by my constituents, does he recall the very unsatisfactory environmental conditions that he saw in Mountsorrel and elsewhere as a result of the traffic on the A6? Although nobody can expect a bypass at once, will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to introduce a bypass into the programme as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: Conditions in those towns were obviously unsatisfactory. Sooner or later a bypass will have to be built to take the lorries out of them. As I promised when I made my visit, we shall review the programme this year. We shall have to weigh this up against other priorities to see if we can put a scheme into the national programme.

M63/ M56, Stockport

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of work on the M63/M56 in Stockport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Construction of the M63 Stockport/East-West bypass is proceeding satisfactorily and should be finished by the spring of 1982. Detailed


proposals for the M63/M66 extension from Portwood to Denton were published in September 1980 and objections are now being considered.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that many of my constituents will welcome the progress that has been made on the piece of motorway being constructed now, but many others fear that it will simply move traffic congestion from one area to another. What is the timetable for going out to contract for the new section round to Denton?

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly the case that the traffic will be moved from one place to another, although conditions should not be as bad at Portwood as they are at the present terminal. We have received some objections to the draft orders that were published last year. A public inquiry will be the next step, and I hope it can be held in the autumn of this year.

Road Construction Budget

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the recommendation in the report from the Transport Select Committee on the roads White Paper that there should be a firm commitment to maintain the real size of the road construction budget at the 1980–81 level.

Mr. Fowler: I shall be responding to the Select Committee's report in due course. I have already made clear that while I cannot give any guarantees, I hope to maintain investment in the road programme.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Armitage report, and also the fact that the Select Committee has expressed very clear views on the subject? Is it wise to cut the construction programme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Bedford we have seen very little progress on works on the A428 and also the western relief road? We have been asking for something to happen for a long time but we still find very little being done.

Mr. Fowler: We should be clear about the position in terms of cutting investment. The Government have not presided over massive cuts in road investment. Our whole intent has been to try to maintain investment in the trunk road and motorway programme. I understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest, because he loses no opportunity—and rightly so—to tell me about it. This is a matter which is currently under discussion between the county council and the Department.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Select Committee's recommendation was that there should be a higher priority for more resources for investment in transport? Will he now recognise that the higher priority given in Europe to higher subsidies is crucial to a proper transport industry, and that fanciful ideas such as the hiving off of the Southern region of British Rail or car sharing are no solution? The Secretary of State should learn the lesson that his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Energy have learnt, namely, that more subsidies are needed if we are to have a proper transport system in this country.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has managed to get about 15 separate subjects into his question, none of which has anything to do with road investment. Investment was

cut by the Labour Government by 46 per cent. The massive cuts in road investment took place under the Labour Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister agree that an investment in transport, whether road or rail, at the present time can be nothing but beneficial? Will he agree that it is necessary to build a really efficient infrastructure for the future, when the upturn in the economy eventually comes?

Mr. Fowler: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said—much more reasonably, if I may say so, than the Opposition Front Bench. What the hon. Gentleman says is right. The strategy of the Government is to try to maintain the investment in the road programme. Certainly one would want to look forward to that investment increasing as the economy recovers from the present position.

British Railways (Diesel Fleet)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place with British Railways regarding investment to replace the diesel multiple unit fleet.

Mr. Fowler: The British Railways Board is not yet in a position to submit detailed proposals to me for replacing the diesel multiple unit fleet since it has not yet decided on the replacement vehicle or vehicles.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister encourage British Rail to produce a substitute design? If secondary routes, such as the Keighley-Bradford and Keighley-Leeds services, are to be improved and provide a speedy and reliable service, British Rail will have to come forward with new designs in the very near future. The lightweight railbuses with which British Rail is currently experimenting are no satisfactory solution. Will the Minister accept that encouraging British Rail to produce new designs and having a proper level of investment will unquestionably help to reduce the disgraceful level of unemployment which was revealed yesterday?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, the railbus has an application in some areas. I am not claiming for one moment that it has an application in all areas. At the moment, we are awaiting the investment submission from the board for the replacement of the DMU fleet. I am afraid that I shall have to wait for that before giving a substantive answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Adley: With regard to investment in new passenger and freight transport, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is widespread feeling on each side of the House that the sooner he comes to a positive decision on electrification—I hope in favour of it—the better we shall all like it?

Mr. Fowler: That subject comes up under the next question.

Railways (Electrification)

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for a rolling programme of electrification of British Railways main lines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The report of the review of main line electrification was published on 11 February. The


financial assessment which it presents is favourable, but I have to consider the wider issues which it raises, including the prospects for the commercial rail business and how the funds to finance electrification might be generated.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Sir Peter Parker's statement that we have a golden opportunity to back a winner this time? Does he further agree that the large-scale implementation of electrification which is recommended in the report is vital to the structure of the railway system? Is he aware that such a move would give a further tremendous uplift to the electrical industries, to the supply industries and to the export potential for everything attached to the railway system? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will implement a rolling programme and not try to act in a piecemeal way?

Mr. Fowler: We do not want to look at the issue in a piecemeal way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that aspect. I also agree with him that such a move is of profound importance for the private sector in supplying the equipment. In the next few months we shall be considering this in conjunction with the British Rail corporate plan and the plan for electrification, which take us over the next decade. They have to be considered together.

Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend see any scope for private investment in British Rail—if not in electrification then in passenger rolling stock—which would leave more resources available for electrification?

Mr. Fowler: We are in the Transport Bill seeking private investment in some of the subsidiaries. I shall be eager and happy to look at other opportunities. My right hon. Friend has mentioned an avenue which the Government should explore.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are wondering whether he appreciates the large number of private firms which depend upon orders from the British Railways Board for the maintenance and repair of the track and repair of coaching and freight stock? Is he aware that Callender Cables of Prescot—just across the border from my constituency in St. Helens—has recently made 750 men redundant as a result of the lack of orders from British Rail? Will he see what steps he can take to assist the BRB to provide the necessary work to enable Prescot Cables to take those men back into full-time work?

Mr. Fowler: I thought that I had made clear that that is one of the major factors that we shall take into account in considering investment and in considering the whole electrification programme. The prospect for the private sector is one of the factors, but there are also the opportunities for the railway business as a whole. That is why we are trying to do it together. I have also talked to the rail council at a very constructive meeting, and I am very grateful for its advice on the whole electrification issue.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend develop urgently the co-operation between British Rail and private sector finance sources so as to speed the development of electrification on the railways? Is it not the case that the electricity programme can be divided into bite-sized chunks that will enable private sector finance to be forthcoming in the right sort of amounts?

Mr. Fowler: This is one of the issues being looked at by the British Railways Board in dealing with this matter. I shall consider any proposals put to me. There may be difficulties, particularly in identifying the investment within a network system, but it is in the interests of the railway industry for us to look at all opportunities for investment in it.

Mr. Stott: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the case for an extensive electrification programme has been borne out conclusively in his own Department's report, together with that of British Railways, and that the major option available to the Secretary of State is the one which would have a practical and long-term effect, not only for the railways but for the British industry as well?
Is the Secretary of State further aware—bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) said—that one of the main conclusions of the report was that time is of the essence, and that a decision on this issue needs to be taken very soon if British industry is to benefit from it? Will the Secretary of State come to the House very soon and give us an indication when he is prepared to go ahead with these proposals?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that time is very important. We must put together the electrification proposals with the corporate review. We are talking of Ministers considering this during the next month or two. That is the time scale that we have in mind. That is right because of the importance of this for the railway industry. The sort of decisions that we are taking now will affect the railway industry for the whole of the 1980s.

Rail Services (Closures)

Ron: Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any proposals put to him for the closure of rail services.

Mr. Fowler: British Rail has made proposals for the closure of two passenger services in passenger transport excutive areas, one following the withdrawal of PTE support; and three other proposals, involving the termination of a short shuttle, the closure of a station in south London and the re-routeing of some services in East Anglia. London Transport has also put forward one closure proposal.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Railways are forecasting about 3,000 miles of track closure by 1990, unless more investment is forthcoming? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to live up to his earlier reputation and assurances of no substantial cuts in British Rail services unless he makes more money available for investment?

Mr. Fowler: We are talking about expenditure of less than £20 million a year on the 3,000 miles that the hon. Gentleman mentions. That comes within the £1,850 million budget of British Railways. With collect and deliver parcels British Rail is losing £40 million a year. There is considerable scope for providing the sort of investment of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. That is clearly one of the things that we want to achieve.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there has recently been speculation about widespread closures and, if possible, deny such speculation?

Mr. Fowler: The Government's policy on this matter has not changed in any way. We are not prepared to see the sort of Beeching cuts that took place in the 1960s. That decision rests with me and I am glad to affirm it.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that British Railways have warned the local authorities quite specifically about a number of lines that they will not be able to maintain if they have no additional investment? Is he aware that those lines include the Newcastle to Edinburgh local services? Does he share the fears of British Railways?

Mr. Fowler: I imagine that those lines are within the 3,000 miles mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). I understand the fears. There are ways in which we can find the investment within the existing provision. I shall talk to British Railways about that. It is part of the whole review of British Rail policy that we are conducting.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister consider the future of the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrified line scheduled for closure on 1 June this year? Will he, even at this late stage, agree to an independent public inquiry to investigate the future of that line, bearing in mind that a precedent was set some years ago when one of his predecessors set up a public inquiry into the future of the Waterford-Fishguard steamer freight-only service? Does the Minister agree that it is not good enough for him to say that the matter does not concern him?

Mr. Fowler: I understand the concern about the matter. The public must be clear that this is a freight line and not a passenger service. British Rail must have total discretion. Closures will save British Rail £2½ million a year. That will be achieved without traffic loss. Given those figures and the present position, it is extremely difficult to argue with British Rail's judgment.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right Friend make a close study of any proposals from Southern region for the closure or rescheduling of commuter services in south-east London, where we have no alternative public transport facilities?

Mr. Fowler: All closure proposals have to come to me. There has to be a hearing of the Transport Users Consultative Committee; and, as a result, the committee makes proposals to me. It is in that context that a decision would be made.

Lorry Weights and Dimensions

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his proposals with regard to lorry weights and dimensions.

Mr. Fowler: I welcome any further representations on the Armitage report until mid-March. The Government will come to decisions on the recommendations made in the report after that.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear rejection by Armitage of the European Commission suggestion for heavier axle loadings makes the prospect of European agreement on heavier lorries more remote? Does he agree that any decision to change the weight and dimensions of lorries is essentially a matter for Britain

alone and that the Armitage report did not make out a strong case on economic or environmental grounds for any significant changes?

Mr. Fowler: It depends on what my hon. Friend means by "significant changes". I entirely agree with his first point. I have made it clear that we shall be making decisions in the British context. From the general interest point of view, there is a balance between the demands of environment and industry. It is wise for the House to take time to investigate the various proposals and the points that have been made by industry.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister confirm the undertaking given to the House by the Under-Secretary to the effect that any new Government proposals will be brought before the House for debate and decision?

Mr. Fowler: Clearly any proposals about weight made in an order will be brought before the House. Of that there is no question, but the issue has not gone to Ministers yet. We shall consider how best the House can be consulted. We all want consultation on these proposals.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Armitage report is out of print and unobtainable from the Vote Office? Will he give an undertaking that, as we had only a half-day debate earlier, there will be a proper full day's debate on Armitage before the Government reach a conclusion, not afterwards?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that we can remedy the first matter. On the second point, in reaching our decision we shall consider how the House should be involved. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the last time this matter was discussed in the House we were given very short notice? Is he aware that the House was concerned that there should be a full-scale debate on Armitage? Is the Minister aware that it is not a question of the Government considering how best to consult the House but rather a question of the House asserting its right to debate a subject? Will the Minister consider the importance in his proposals—because the time scale brings easement to the industry—of introducing a package in accordance with Armitage in order that environmental and other matters are included in his decision?

Mr. Fowler: I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the first point. I do not think that I can go further than that. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is a package of proposals and that is why we intend to take time to consider all the implications. It is a question not only of weight but of other proposals, such as taxation, upon which we are already acting, bypasses, and other such matters. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Freight Terminals

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider raising the maximum level of grant which can be obtained for investing in freight terminals alongside railways under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974, as amended by section 16 of the Transport Act 1978.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: This is one of the recommendations made in Sir Arthur Armitage's report, "Inquiry into Lorries, People and the Environment", which we are currently considering.

Mr. Stott: The Minister's reply will be seen as a disappointment by those of us on both sides of the House who think that, for economic and environmental reasons, the extension of section 8 grants is vital if we are to get more freight off the roads and on to the railways. The proposals in the Armitage report are supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to see that happen. Can the Minister say whether, independent of the report coming back to the House, he is prepared to make a statement or to make a stand on the issue of section 8 grants and implement suggestions in the report?

Mr. Clarke: I do not see why my reply is disappointing, because we are keen to see a transfer of freight from road to rail where it makes sense and where there are environmental advantages. We give section 8 grants regularly. We have not cut the sum available. We have allowed all the applications bar one; I think that we have allowed 33 different grant applications so far.
We are considering Sir Arthur Armitage's recommendation that there might be improvements in the system. Therefore, I do not think that my reply is disappointing. The Government are clearly committed to transferring traffic from road to rail wherever that is practicable.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that action needs to be taken urgently, and that it is not part of an Armitage package? Does he agree that what we need is less intrusion by the lorry—not larger lorries in return for more grants—but simply more grants to switch traffic from road to rail? If less than 2 per cent, were switched, British Rail's freight operation would move into the black.

Mr. Clarke: It is not part of the Armitage package. We are determined to transfer traffic from road to rail. We are already giving the grants, and have turned down only one application. All that we are looking at is the possibility of improvements. We have not been guilty of neglecting this area so far.

Bridges (Yorkshire and Humberside)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if prior to reaching a conclusion on the implementation of the Armitage report, he will cause a study to be made of the number of bridges in Yorkshire and Humberside which would need to be strengthened if lorries of the size envisaged in that report were permitted to use them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. The Armitage recommendations for heavier lorries were framed specifically to avoid the need for any strengthening of bridges.

Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister disregard the strident propaganda of the road transport lobby on this issue and examine ways in which long-distance heavy loads can be carried more frequently by rail and by water? The investment needed for that would obviate the need for the very heavy lorries.

Mr. Clarke: I try to avoid strident propaganda from all sections of the transport industry. I hope that I can refute

a myth—that the armitage recommendations require millions of pounds to be spent on strengthening our bridges. We are anxious to look at possible ways of improving section 8 procedures, amongst other means, to find better methods for transferring traffic from road to rail, and even water, where that proves to be feasible.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that all the costs should be borne in mind before a decision is made on this very important subject—not only the strengthening of bridges, but even the impact of heavy lorries on road markings, which are surely the cheapest way of ensuring road safety? This is a very important area, which should be considered before any decision is made on Armitage.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that the cost part of the problem is very important. That is why we are taking steps in the Transport Bill to alter the system of heavy goods vehicle taxation, to make sure that the heaviest lorries pay their proper share of road costs.

Mr. Hardy: Before the Minister reaches any conclusion on the Armitage report, whether in respect of bridges or anything else, will he guarantee properly to consult highway authorities? Can he name any local authority, parish council or community council that is in favour of the proposals?

Mr. Clarke: We are consulting widely. One of the first bodies that we consulted was the House of Commons. That is why we had a very quick debate. As my right hon. Friend has already said, Ministers as a whole have not yet considered the report. They will not make decisions on the matter until we have consulted all interested bodies and tried to come to a well-informed, balanced judgment on very difficult issues.

Cycling

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the Green Paper on cycling.

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the consultation paper on cycling.

Mr. Fowler: Soon.

Mr. Dormand: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Under-Secretary saying last June that a consultation paper would be published "shortly"—that was the hon. and learned Gentleman's word—and in December last year that it would be published "soon"? We have had the same reply again today. Is not this a clear indication that the Government have no interest whatever in the promotion of cycling, even in these days of energy conservation, pollution and emphasis on physical fitness? Does he not agree that the need for active interest in the matter is greater than ever? Will he and his hon. and learned Friend send me £1 each to join the all-party group on cycling, as a demonstration of their good intent?

Mr. Fowler: I suppose that as I have had a salary increase I can say that I shall send the hon. Gentleman £1. I cannot speak for my hon. and learned Friend the Under-secretary, who, regrettably, has not yet received an increase.
Publication of the paper will be sooner than when my hon. and learned Friend last gave that reply. I think that I can say that it will be published next month. I share the


hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter. There are important policy implications to do with cycling, including the safety implications.

Mr. Myles: I shall send £1 to join the all-party cycling group.
Will my right hon. Friend allocate resources and give encouragement to cycling projects? As the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) suggested, they do not require energy subsidy.

Mr. Fowler: That is one of the changes that we shall want to develop. Only today we have helped in the promotion of a cycle route in London. More imaginative things can be done in promoting cycling, and we should like to do them.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent proposal by one of the London boroughs to turn pedestrian pavements into cycle tracks? Will his Green Paper, when it is published, deal with that aspect and possible changes in the law to enable such things to be done?

Mr. Fowler: We shall examine that matter. I do not know whether the Green Paper will deal with it, but certainly it will be part of the debate. I am sure that the responses to the Green Paper on cycling will include such suggestions. There are problems, but I shall not detain the House with them now.

Mr. Forman: I endorse my right hon. Friend's commitment to cycling, and particularly its advantages for physical fitness. But does he agree that, while two wheels are better for fitness than four, no wheels are best of all? Will he also give his support to walking?

Mr. Fowler: At one stage we also had a pedestrian paper—

Mr. William Hamilton: They are all pedestrian.

Mr. Fowler: The House may think that all our papers are pedestrian. We were going to produce a paper on pedestrian policy. I am encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). We shall see whether we can bring forward that paper afterwards.

Advanced Passenger Train

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected commercial operational starting date of the advanced passenger train.

Mr. Fowler: I understand from the Railways Board that it plans to start operating the APT prototypes in commercial service later this year, but at the moment there is no firm date for their introduction. I am awaiting the board's latest appreciation of the prospects for the APT.

Mr. Huckfield: I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware of some of the rumours and stories circulating that there may now be several years' delay because of technical troubles that the APT has encountered? Will he give the House some of the information that he has about the alleged technical troubles, and give an assurance that if there is any further delay it will not be on his part, through lack of money?

Mr. Fowler: None of the delay has had anything to do with Government policy or cuts in support. I can give the hon. Gentleman that categorical assurance. The three

prototypes are being modified to cure the tilt and braking system problems that have come up. There have been various other delays, stretching back to 1974. That is why it is important that the three prototypes go into service as early as possible.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the cost of the APT programme to date, and say whether it shows any export potential?

Mr. Fowler: Expenditure on the project so far is £42 million. If it can be developed into a good production run and show itself in service, there could be export potential. But the most important thing is that the three prototypes get into service at the earliest opportunity.

Railways (Safety Standards)

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what process he uses to satisfy himself of the safety standards of the railways.

Mr. Fowler: British Rail is required to report to my Department a wide range of accidents and incidents. The information collected is used to compare one year's safety record with another, and by this means a watch is kept on long-term trends. A full analysis is then published annually in the chief inspecting officer's report on railways safety. The provisional results for 1980 show that, for the third time in five years, not a single passenger was killed in a train accident, and the incidence of potentially serious accidents was the lowest ever recorded.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Secretary of State and the House will agree that that is a highly commendable record for British Rail, and one that should be made widely known. However, will he bear in mind that there is increasing concern in British Rail about the ability to keep up that record? There is a considerable backlog of track maintenance. I shall not dwell on the question of investment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not dwell on anything. He should ask a question.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State take into account the need for British Rail and, indeed, his Department, to examine the efficiency and the long-term advantage, as well as the viability, of steel sleepers in order to cope with the backlog of track maintenance?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the investment ceiling has been maintained in real terms at the same level as under the previous Government. Track renewal is extra to the investment ceiling. We shall look at the question of steel sleepers.

Mr. Bagier: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that maintaining this sort of safety record is extremely expensive for British Rail? Will he not agree that the fire at Taunton on the sleeping car train, which cost some lives, led to a tremendous amount of money being spent by British Rail to put matters right? Will he ensure that when he considers the Armitage report he will insist on the same strict adherence to safety in relation to lorry users as he does in relation to British Rail?

Mr. Fowler: I agree that there is a comparison. The House will wish to examine, when we discuss Armitage, the question of safety, including the safety of lorries.

Trunk Roads (Construction)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he took of the £3·6 million underspent on the trunk road construction budget for 1979–80 in fixing the amount for 1980–81.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The cash limit for roads was overspent by £3·9 million in 1979–80. Within that limit, the lower spending on new construction was more than offset by an increase in motorway and trunk road maintenance. The allocation for new construction within the cash limit for 1980–81 is sufficient to enable good progress to be made with the schemes in the Government's programme.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister agree that he has not accurately assessed the inflation factors in these figures? This has had the effect of slowing down the construction programme even though this is not immediately apparent. Does he also agree that the outcome is that starts on many important road schemes have been delayed?

Mr. Clarke: There were difficulties, certainly in the first year, in estimating inflation figures correctly. That had an effect on the volume of new construction. Nevertheless, we are now maintaining good progress with the programme. We look certain to start work on all the main programme schemes that are ready this year. I hope that we shall be able to build a substantial part of the reserve schemes that are waiting to be built. There are no substantial delays or shortfall in our capital construction programme.

Mr. Jessel: If there is any underspending on new road and motorway construction will these sums be used to hasten completion of the M25 ring motorway around London that is so badly needed?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that we are avoiding, by more careful management, the massive underspending that always plagued the Labour Government's road programme. With the money available we are giving the highest priority of all to the M25 orbital road round London. I am glad to say that we have passed the half-way point of construction. I hope that we shall get the whole road open well to time.

London Transport

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Exchequer contribution to London Transport in 1981–82 on the provision of services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is the responsibility of the GLC in the first place to assess the appropriate support level for London Transport in the light of its effect on services and against London's other transport needs. We then take that assessment and its implications into account when considering the allocation of TSG.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that more money has been spent on public transport in Paris since 1970 than in the whole of Britain and that the number of passengers in Paris is increasing whereas, on London Transport, it is declining? Does he not agree that his policies are leading to London having the worst and costliest public transport system of any major city in western Europe?

Mr. Clarke: The authorities in Paris are taking steps to try and increase the proportion of revenue that comes

from fares because the cost of that system has become insupportable to the national taxpayer. Here, in London, we are increasing the amount of grants given to the GLC for, among other things, capital investment in the public passenger transport system. The grant that Government gave this year to Greater London was £15 million higher for capital investment in transport.

Mr. Higgins: What account is taken of the fact that some free provision of transport is made in London for pensioners that is not available elsewhere?

Mr. Clarke: That was included in the plans that the GLC put to us. It is a substantial part of the support that the GLC gives to the public transport system. Not every local authority has the same needs. Each authority has to assess its own transport priorities and decide how best to spend the Government grant to give the best benefit to passengers in its area.

Mr. Newens: Has the Minister any plans to change the method of providing financial support for London Transport undertakings carrying commuters? If not, will he prevail on the Essex county council to provide the grant that is available for the support of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central line? Will he reject proposals to close that line?

Mr. Clarke: London does quite well by the present method. Twenty five per cent, of the funds available nationally for local government transport expenditure goes to the GLC. I have discussed with the Essex county council its policy towards support of the Epping-Ongar line. The proposals for closure have been considered by the TUCC. They are before my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, at the moment. He will be giving a decision on that difficult matter in the near future.

Transport Investment

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further plans to increase transport investment.

Mr. Fowler: My plans for transport investment will be published next month in the public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Fitch: Will the Minister include in his proposals financial support for the 225 route from Orrell to Bolton?

Mr. Fowler: The 225 route is a local government road. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it. I was deprived of the opportunity of giving him a substantive reply last night in his Adjournment debate.

Mr. Foster: Has the Secretary of State seen the reports of the statement by the manager of the Eastern region of British Rail to the effect that, inevitably, over the next 10 years, 34 branch and rural lines will close unless further investment takes place? Is it not true that trains and track urgently need replacing? Its it not also true that the public service obligation has reduced in real terms since the right hon. Gentleman came into office? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Fowler: I have seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am bound to tell him that there are a number of notable inaccuracies in that statement. The passenger manager, Mr. Patteson, says that support from the taxpayer was less in 1979 than in 1975. If, by that, he


means passenger support, which is the support that the Government give, he is totally incorrect. I do not believe that he has set out a fair or objective statement. I shall be making a full response to the passenger manager's statement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that capital investment is extremely good for employment? Will he indicate what priority he gives, for instance, to aiding British Rail or the other projects that have been submitted to him to proceed with the Channel tunnel? Does he further agree that this would undoubtedly provide the hard-pressed construction industry with valuable work and reduce unemployment in that industry?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on, and to stress the importance of the Channel tunnel. The Government have tried to get the tunnel programme moving again with the aid of private investment. This is a matter that the Government should be examining at this time. If we can get private investment and private risk-taking into this area, we can get some of the investment that this country so badly needs.

Mr. Cook: Has the Secretary of State noted the interesting initiative of the steel workers, the mineworkers and the railwaymen to press jointly for increased investment in their industries? Has he noted that, since those initiatives, his colleagues have announced substantially greater funds for the mines and the steel industry? When does he hope to come to the House to announce proposals for increased funds for the railways?

Mr. Fowler: I am seeing representatives of the rail unions and the other two unions—the triple alliance to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not think that if I were the hon. Gentleman I would jump to any conclusions just yet.

Road Transport Undertakings (Fare Schemes)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has upon the relative effectiveness of the different fare schemes applied by public road transport undertakings.

Mr. Fowler: I am collecting information on this but what we do know is that indiscriminate subsidies to keep fares artificially low have meant soaring bills for the ratepayer and can force a loss of jobs and investment in industry. Local authorities would be well advised to scrutinise very closely just what benefits the public get from costly policies of this sort.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he recall that the experience of the South Yorkshire fares experiment has often been put forward by Opposition Members as a good example of a beneficial scheme? Will he let me know today, or at some other time, the cost of the South Yorkshire scheme to the domestic and industrial ratepayer in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Fowler: My information is that revenue support in South Yorkshire, leaving aside concessionary fares, is at present costing £35 million a year and is likely to go up to £47 million next year. Although this is apparently now the policy of the Opposition, it was opposed by the Labour Government. The Minister of Transport at that time described the policies as wasteful. I think that is right.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that that level of support is recognised as normal in Europe and America? Does he accept that more people travel on that system than on Tory metropolitan authority systems, where there are high redundancies and high fares? Does he understand that the Opposition believe that it is important that a transport policy leads to more people travelling on the buses?

Mr. Fowler: It is true that the number of passengers has increased by 2 per cent, between 1976 and 1979. However, the evidence seems to suggest that people are not leaving their cars but that bus users are making more journeys by bus. The attitude expressed by the Opposition is a U-turn because they completely opposed the policy when in Government.

Manpower Requirements

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will carry out a new investigation of the jobs needing to be undertaken by the Civil Service based on an assumption that no organisation currently exists, and then staff the Civil Service accordingly.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): No, Sir, but all Ministers in charge of Departments have been, and are, reviewing their functions and tasks together with the appropriate organisation and staffing required. These reviews contribute to the planned reduction of the Civil Service to 630,000 by April 1984. The Government intend to publish a White Paper describing the work that is being done.

Mr. Marlow: As this review concerns what many people would consider to be the most overpaid, over-protected and under-productive group of workers in this country, paid for out of the pockets of industrial workers hit by recession, will my hon. Friend take advantage of any contemplated industrial action to prove that in certain departments a skeleton staff can do just as efficient a job as the current staff?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the Civil Service. Discussions are in progress with the Civil Service unions about this year's pay settlement and future arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants. It is deplorable that there should be talk of industrial action which would disrupt important public services when the Government have indicated their positive response, their intentions for future arrangements for settling pay, a subject to which I know civil servants attach considerable importance. There has been a responsible approach and I do not think that there is any justification for industrial action.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that because of the staff cuts that have already been made—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not enough.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says "Not enough". Will the Minister bear in mind that, as a result of the cuts needy families—on the admission of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—are not receiving the family income supplement to which they are entitled, and that at a time of peak and rising unemployment the


Manpower Services Commission is considering closing down jobs centres or cutting back on the manning of those centres? Is it not time for the Government to admit what we all know in the House—namely, that the Government's manpower cuts are being achieved only at the cost of seriously damaging the quality of essential services?

Mr. Hayhoe: I repudiate the charge that essential services are being damaged. It is right that the Government should seek to make the Civil Service more efficient and reduce some of the tasks that our predecessors laid upon it. We have succeeded in reducing the numbers by a net 37,000. That is a good achievement and we have further progress to make in the coming years.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent successful exercise to cut out a number of the more senior posts in the Civil Service? Could not a similar exercise be conducted lower down the line to cover the whole generality of the staff?

Mr. Hayhoe: Departments are constantly considering the appropriate staffing and organisation to carry out their functions. They are reviewing the functions laid upon them by Parliament and in other ways to ensure that necessary tasks are being carried out.

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what cash limit applies to the expenditure of the English and Welsh Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for 1980–81.

Mr. Hayhoe: As my predecessor told the House of Commons on 25 June 1980, the cash limit for the English and Welsh Boundary Commissions for 1980–81 is £191,000.

Dr. Marshall: Does not the latest estimate of the commissions' expenditure during the current year, which is £238,000, exceed the cash limit by more than 20 per cent? Is not that an example of the Government disregarding their own cash limits when it apparently suits their own party interests?

Mr. Hayhoe: The work load of the boundary commissions has increased because of the progress that has been made by the Local Government Boundary Commission. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a linkage between the two. The excess of spending over the cash limit on the part of the Boundary Commissions will be met under the same subhead by a saving on the costs of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, so no Supplementary Estimates are involved.

Job Dispersal (Northern Region)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he now has for transferring Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

Mr. Hayhoe: There are at present no plans to disperse Government offices beyond those announced by my predecessor on 26 July 1979.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures published yesterday indicate that the Northern region remains at the head of the unemployment league? Does he recall that when his Government came to power they immediately stopped the

transfer of hundreds of jobs due to go to the region? Does he accept that the need for those jobs is greater than ever? If the Government are really concerned about the region, as they often say they are, does he agree that direct Government action on the transfer of Civil Service posts could lead to reduced unemployment immediately?

Mr. Hayhoe: We believe that no further dispersals should take place because of the publc expenditure implications of such dispersals. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—who was answering questions yesterday on unemployment in the North-East—and the Government are not taking the appropriate measures. We do not think that the dispersal of further Civil Service jobs would be in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend accept that before consideration of the transference of jobs, the procedures for reviewing pay should be clarified? If he accepts that, as he seemed to say earlier, why have the Government suspended pay research? Does not my hon. Friend's statement represent a significant shift in the Government's attitude in the face of determined and coherent wage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his supplementary question is related to this question, or is it related to question No. 55?

Mr. Shepherd: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we were talking about priorities.

Mr. Speaker: The question relates to the transfer of Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that his reversal of the policy of the Labour Government is widening the gap between the deprived North and the affluent South? Will he bear in mind that well-qualified school leavers are denied the opportunity to enter the Civil Service because they have to come to London to join the career structure? This means more inefficiency, and unfairness to youngsters in the North.

Mr. Hayhoe: It was right to go back upon the Labour Government's dispersal policy, which seemed to be animated much more by political considerations than considerations of efficiency. It should be fully understood that 80 per cent, of the Civil Service is located outside Greater London. Four out of five civil servants work outside London.

Mr. Bill Walker: When Civil Service jobs are transferred to the Northern region or anywhere else and when civil servants refuse to move, will my hon. Friend confirm that they will be considered to have terminated their employment and that others wil be recruited locally?

Mr. Hayhoe: The requirements upon individual civil servants depend upon the grade and class of civil servant. Some are required to move by the terms of their contract of employment and others are not. We shall abide by their contracts.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that the extra costs to which he referred earlier are entirely justified in regional policy terms and are minor compared with the massive public expenditure costs of unemployment in the regions? Will he bear in mind that there is bitterness in the Northern region, and in other regions which have lost jobs


that were promised to them within the Civil Service, because, at a time when their traditional basic industries and newer manufacturing industries are being destroyed, they are being denied the opportunity of widening their employment base through employment in the Civil Service and public administration?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman should know that there is pressure from the areas where dispersal is taking place for that dispersal to be cancelled. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last year that we would maintain the pregrammes that we announced.

Spain (Congress of Deputies)

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have today sent a telegram to the President of the Spanish Congress of Deputies, Senor Lavilla, in the following terms:
I was shocked to hear of the outrage committed yesterday against the Congress of Deputies and against yourself as its President. You and the Deputies underwent a severe ordeal, and your conduct has earned the respect of parliamentarians throughout the democratic world. I offer the congratulations of the House of Commons on the happy outcome to a development which alarmed the friends of Spanish democracy.

European Community (Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 23 and 24 February, which I attended, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department. With the exception of the Italian Minister, who will report the position of his Government by 10 March, the Council agreed to a package consisting of arrangements for New Zealand butter and for imports of beef from third countries, a new sugar regime, and a major development of structural policy.
I am pleased to say that we obtained a three-year agreement for New Zealand butter which will allow imports of 94,000 tonnes in 1981 and 92,000 tonnes for 1982. The Council will decide the amount for 1983 before 1 October 1982. I consulted the New Zealand Government, who approved of the agreement and have expressed their appreciation of our successful endeavours on their behalf.
The arrangements for the import of beef were agreed in accordance with the Commission's proposal, including the figure of 60,000 tonnes for manufacturing beef, which is the figure sought by Australia.
The sugar regime, which is subject to the views of the European Parliament, will include a total A and B quota for the United Kingdom of just under 1·15 million tonnes—a reduction of 182,000 tonnes. The cost of the regime, apart from the costs arising from the import of ACP sugar, will be financed by levies on sugar production.
The structure package as finally agreed is generally satisfactory and includes an agricultural development programme for Northern Ireland enjoying a contribution of 40 per cent. from Community funds, a scheme for marketing and processing of animal feed in Northern Ireland, 50 per cent. and an integrated development programme for the Western Isles of Scotland, to which Community funds will contribute 40 per cent. of the cost. The scheme for Northern Ireland will amount to £40 million and for the Western Isles £20 million.
The Council agreed, after pressure from the United Kingdom, to increase the sluice-gate prices for certain types of poultry, which will be a particular help in the United Kingdom turkey sector.
The Commissioner announced that France had formally notified a package of State aids to the Commission on 14 February. The Commission had opened proceedings against France under the relevant article of the Treaty of

Rome. The Commissioner also announced that proposals for a directive to remove the distortions of competition caused by different poultrymeat hygiene inspection practices would be ready in the near future.
The Commission presented its price proposals and they were commented on briefly by Ministers. A more detailed discussion will held on 16 March.

Mr. Roy Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some useful progress seems to have been made at this last Council meeting, although that progress may be dependent upon Italian agreement? We welcome the New Zealand butter deal, but we are still concerned about the annual reductions. There seems to be a steady and constant pressure to squeeze out New Zealand imports from the Common Market. We hope that the Minister will continue to stand by our Commonwealth friends.
We welcome the package of the EEC and United Kingdom financial assistance to farmers in Northern Ireland and the Western Isles of Scotland. It appears that of the £60 million Her Majesty's Government will probably pay about £36 million. That represents a useful boost for areas where it is badly needed.
As the right hon. Gentleman secured the quota for the United Kingdom beet producers, and noting that there has been a reduction of 182,000 tonnes, can he say whether there will be a reduction in the quotas of the other Common Market surplus beet producers? If not, is it not likely that there will be another sugar mountain in the future, with all the problems that that will create for the ACP cane producers.
On the question of State aid in France, even if France is found guilty, what can the Commission do about it? What sanctions can it apply to France, in view of the way in which that country has helped its own farming industry?
On the Commission's proposed package, which includes some useful reforms, what is the Minister's attitude on controlling surpluses by further coresponsibility levies? How does he think that the super levy on milk will be applied, and how will it affect the British dairy industry?
On the matter of MCAs—monetary compensatory amounts—there is a need to recognise the growing difficulties in the British farming industry, but is the Minister aware that with a positive MCA of over 18 per cent. the British consumer is continuing to suffer? Indeed, he is now the Community's notorious biggest food taxpayer, and British housewives and consumers are now actually boosting the CAP budget. In these negotiations the Minister must be prepared to accept some revaluation of the green pound.
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed increases for the total package are still too generous? Above all, he must oppose the increases of those products that are in structural surplus.

Mr. Walker: First, I thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for his generous remarks about New Zealand butter. He knows that the New Zealand Government have welcomed the proposals. Indeed, this Government can be proud of what has been achieved. We achieved the figures and the three-year agreement in the face of opposition from France and Ireland, who were in favour of figures of 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes on a one-year basis only.
On the matter of sugar beet quotas, I did not give the fugure for Europe as a whole, because of the disagreement of the Italian Government, who are urging an increase in their A quota sugar that the Community was unwilling to give. Until that matter is settled, I am unable to give the figure. But, for the first time over Europe as a whole, sugar beet quotas will be reduced.
On the question of State aids, I believe that we are moving towards co-responsibility levies, and they can be imposed in a sensible and sane manner only if there is no distortion of State aid. I therefore welcome the Commission's decision to take proceedings against France in order to expose the extent and degree of the problem, and I hope that the Community will see that such problems do not recur.
Then there is the attitude of Ministers to the various problems of price fixing. The Presidency suggested—I think correctly—that as the proposals were published only last Friday, proper consideration could not be given until 16 March. At yesterday's meeting, France, Germany and other countries expressed their bitter hostility to a super-levy, but I believe that there must be some form of penalty on those who increase the production of goods that are in surplus. The principle is one that the British Government will support, as they did last year.
I find the Opposition's view to MCAs rather remarkable. I look forward to a clear announcement from them on the question of the degree to which they wish further to reduce British farmers' incomes. It is interesting that, at yesterday's meeting, the other countries with positive MCAs, namely, Germany and the Benelux countries, were all staunch defenders of their positive MCAs. It may be that they recognise that the eradication of the MCAs is more to the benefit of the foreign exporter than the domestic consumer. The disastrous policy of the Labour Government of negative MCAs well illustrate that.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take pleasure in the fact that the proposals for price increases in this coming review are exactly the same as the overall price increase agreed to by the Labour Government.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved, which shows what can be done when a Minister gets the balance right between the producer and the consumer, but can he tell us whether progress has been made with the United Kingdom butter subsidy? Can he also clear up a small problem that has been worrying some of us? Was the average price increase to British agriculture under the Socialists 7½ per cent.?

Mr. Walker: In the Commission proposals there is a continuation of the British butter subsidy. It is important to retain it. The average Community price increase agreed to by the previous Government was 7·56 per cent.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of what the Minister has achieved for Northern Ireland, will he ensure that he keeps in close touch with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland farming interests to ensure that the £40 million will be concentrated on the most vulnerable sectors of agriculture?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am delighted that we have at last reached agreement on the matter. It is an important

injection of money for Northern Ireland. I regret that, compared with the moment that I obtained agreement in principle, there has been this delay. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is anxious to see that the money helps in every way possible the areas of Northern Ireland agriculture that are having great difficulty.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the achievement on sluice-gate prices for turkeymeat will be much appreciated in many parts of the country, not least Hereford? Will he take great care not to lose the initiative over the poultrymeat inspection directive and to keep right behind it, as it is of vital interest to the poultry sector?

Mr. Walker: We considered it important to try to improve the sluice-gate prices. The British poultry industry requires every possible assistance at present. I had hoped that proposals on hygiene inspection would be available in January. The death of Mr. Gundelach, who had promised to do that, made it impossible. The new Commissioner has undertaken to attend to the matter speedily. All Ministers present at the Council of Ministers were impressed by the manner in which the new Commissioner, Mr. Dalsager, performed his duties.

Mr. Donald Stewart: May I welcome the approval of the integrated development programme as it applies to the Western Isles and thank the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend for their part in securing the agreement? May I ask for an assurance that the commitment of the Government to their part of the programme will be fully and enthusiastically accepted?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend said, but can he tell us when he expects to be able to discuss with his colleagues in Brussels the reduction of fuel subsidies in the glasshouse industry? Is he aware that growers in this country are facing a crisis this winter and many are being forced out of business by grossly uncompetitive fuel prices? Since the Belgian, French and German Governments have found a way to help their growers to withstand the unfair competition, will he consider a subsidy on the same scale for our growers this winter until the matter is sorted out in the European Court?

Mr. Walker: Legal proceedings are taking place on the Dutch situation. The speedier they are the better I shall be pleased. Energy prices in the horticulture industry are of immense importance. As a result of a recent NEDC meeting, an inquiry was set up with the CBI, the NEDC and the Government to consider the general implications of energy prices on particular industries. I have seen to it that the impact of energy prices on the horticulture industry is strongly fed into the inquiry.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the Minister make rather more clear whether there is to be a quota for imports of cheese from Australia and New Zealand? If so, how large will it be?

Mr. Walker: We did not discuss cheese at this Council. We were discussing the importation of beef. I am glad to say that the figures which the Australians required and demanded and which a number of countries opposed were granted.

Sir Albert Costain: Will my right hon. Friend put the anxiety of the fishing industry at rest by stating that the satisfactory agreements were obtained without selling our fishing industry up the Seine?

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that on this occasion there was no discussion of fish of any description.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Minister said that the poultrymeat inspection directive will be produced speedily, as he is aware that poultrymeat processors are in grave difficulties, largely because of imports from France, which have increased significantly over the past 12 months. As many people are losing their jobs and the matter is urgent, can he assure the House that if a directive is not forthcoming he will be prepared to stop the imports by taking unilateral action?

Mr. Walker: Decisions on imports will be taken at the time on the evidence available to me. The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such topics and will know that recently I announced that until the hygiene arrangements were made there would be a further grant of £2 million for the poultry industry. The difficulties may be caused partly by imports from France and differences in hygiene arrangements. That is why it was important at the meeting to raise the question of national aids and important that the Commission took the decision.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for a super-levy depends on a national base rather than a Community-wide base for over-production? Will he remind the Labour Party and the Commission that one reason why we cannot have a revaluation of the green pound now is that farm incomes suffered so desperately when the boot was on the other foot under the Labour Government that any revaluation now must inevitably mean greater unemployment for farm workers?

Mr. Walker: One tragedy is that in the processing and manufacturing industries connected with dairy and pig products the negative MCAs pursued by the Labour Government proved disastrous in those years. It will take many years before we can make amends for the damage and import penetration that took place. It is, therefore, to the benefit of the economy as a whole that the position has been somewhat reversed. The proposals on super-levies are on the basis of individual dairies and, therefore, in reality mean that they are applied on a national basis.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that steps to protect the poultry industry are particularly welcome, but that enormous damage has already been done to the industry as a result of the impossible trading conditions over the past couple of years? Is he aware that there have been almost 100 redundancies in the industry in my constituency? Can he specify the assistance that will be given to the industry?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is always well informed on such subjects and will know of the recent assistance that we gave of £2 million, the action that we took last year against imports of American turkeys and the improvement in sluice-gate prices that we achieved in this negotiation.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will be widespread welcome in

Scotland for the integrated development programme for the Western Isles? Does that not show, especially in an area where the EEC and the Government are often knocked, that they are both pledged to do something positive to help the economy of the Western Isles? Having got that negotiation under his belt, will my right hon. Friend now start negotiating an agricultural development scheme for the remainder of the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Walker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. The last meeting showed how a substantial amount of positive aid can go to two areas of the United Kingdom that very much need it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that matters concerning price fixing will probably take up the agenda of the next few Council meetings, which will preclude immediate discussion of the matter that he mentioned.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Minister refers to the need for ratification of the sugar agreement, does he envisage a time limit being necessary? If he does, he should send telegrams now to all the Members of the Assembly who are in scattered corners of the world.

Mr. Walker: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about the agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed not only by British food producers, but by British food processors? Fanning incomes have dropped in recent times—the agreement will remedy that—and the food processors' margins have been far too narrow. How will the package improve the incomes of farmers? Will my right hon. Friend give a little more information about the package as it relates to the poultrymeat industry in Britain, which, as he said, has suffered severely in recent months?

Mr. Walker: I shall publish the detail of the improvement in sluice-gate prices. A major factor is to obtain the directive on poultrymeat hygiene so that the whole of the Community will have the same standard of hygiene inspection and the same method of paying for it. That will eradicate the unfair competition that has taken place to date.
The other proposals give a permanent position for sugar beet production in Britain, as it presently exists, without allowing it to increase to a scale that would be damaging to cane refining. Another factor is the specific structural packages. I have mentioned the one for Northern Ireland and the Western Isles because they are the main features of it, but there are other features that I shall publish in detail in the Official Report—for example, a package of assistance to young farmers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister mentioned the slight reduction in the A quota for beet sugar. Will he confirm that there is no reduction in the American, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar quota? Will he tell the House the amounts that are in dispute in force majeure and when he expects the disputes to be concluded?

Mr. Walker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I forget the exact amounts but, compared with the totality, they are small. It is possibly a switch from the Italian B quota to the Italian A quota. The ACP commitment of 1·3 million tonnes is not in dispute, and never will be. It is safeguarded.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall let the questions run until 4 o'clock. If hon. Members ask brief questions and receive brief replies I shall be able to call everyone who wishes to speak. I shall call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman at the end.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements at the Council meeting. Will he be a little more specific about the A and B quotas for beet sugar? What tonnages have been agreed for them? Have there been reductions in other European countries, and, if so, how much?

Mr. Walker: I forget the exact figures, but as the total is 1·144 million tonnes, of which 90 per cent. is A quota and 10 per cent. B quota, I am sure that my hon. Friend can quickly work out the figures.

Mr. David Myles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we retain our beef premium scheme, and also improve the intervention system for beef to support the beef producers' market?

Mr. Walker: It is essential to retain that scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall objectively examine the various details of intervention policy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: May I provide some perspective for the British contribution to the CAP, even after my right hon. Friend's highly successful negotiations? Will he confirm that if there were European policies to safeguard industrial production, which were as successful as the agricultural policy to safeguard European food production, the cost of the CAP would be put in its proper context by the greater expenditure that would be necessary on those other policies?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's point is correct. This is the one regime in Europe where the marketing and investment arrangements are done on a Community basis. If other areas, such as energy and transport, were operated on a similar basis, there would be higher comparative costs.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position on MCAs and for pointing out that their abolition would benefit foreign exporters much more than the British housewife. In the unlikely event of their being passed on in total to the British housewife, will he confirm that that will amount to only ¼ per cent. on the retail price index, but that their abolition would be disastrous for many farmers?

Mr. Walker: The Commission proposes that we should reduce our MCAs by 5 per cent. As our MCAs will have been reduced by 4 per cent. during the course of this week, that leaves only 1 per cent.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the New Zealand butter quota is to be only half of the imports of New Zealand butter into this country of 186,000 tonnes in 1969, did the Minister obtain an assurance from his Common Market colleagues that they would not stand in the way of New Zealand's attempts to find new markets by dumping 300,000 tonnes of butter at knock-down prices on the world market?

Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has a certain enthusiasm for these topics. He will be pleased to know about the degree to which the New Zealand Government welcome the arrangements made yesterday, and the degree

to which they welcome the manner in which, during the past year, they have worked in happy and close collaboration with the Commission.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We all appreciate my right hon. Friend's attitude towards the problems of the poultry industry. Will he confirm that the Commission fully understands that the future of the industry is in absolute jeopardy? Will he confirm that he made it perfectly clear to the Commission that we are concerned not about special aids or special favours, but that we are playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while other EEC countries break every rule in the book?

Mr. Walker: There is an important difference in poultry hygiene arrangements which can affect the competitive position. As I said earlier, I am much more concerned about the potential damage that could be done by national aids to the poultry industry. That industry could expand swiftly, and a large injection of Government money would create a position in which one country could compete unfairly with another Community country. I issue a warning to other countries contemplating pouring in unfair national aids to that industry. The adverse effect of that on the Community would be such that urgent and immediate action would have to be taken.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: What will be the implications for retail food prices of my right hon. Friend's recent negotiations, especially as food prices paid by the British consumer are already among the highest in the world?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that as a result of the static position in CAP prices during the past two years, for which this Government have responsibility, food prices have increased far less than prices in general, and should continue to do so.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that MCAs have two effects? One is to keep up the income of farmers within the United Kingdom, and the other is to inflate still further the inflated prices that housewives in Britain have to pay for expensive European food. Cannot he keep one and deal with the other? Secondly, will he confirm that he will not allow an increase above 7·8 per cent. in European food prices this year?

Mr. Walker: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that positive MCAs do not increase the incomes of British farmers. They retain the incomes but do not increase them. He appears to be suggesting that I should positively reduce incomes of British fanners. That would be wrong—

Mr. Marlow: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Walker: I am glad that my hon. Friend is not suggesting a revaluation. The countries which have been adversely affected by positive MCAs have been exporters to Britain. For example, there is the classic case of Danish bacon, which has never undercut the British bacon price. If the MCAs were reduced to nothing, there would be not a reduction in the price of Danish bacon but simply bigger rewards for Danish producers.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone in Scotland will welcome the news about the Western Isles? Will he take on board the fact that many other farmers in Scotland are


in a parlous condition, and that there is much work still to be done to ensure that that viable part of the Scottish economy is not allowed to rot?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why we substantially increased the hill farm subsidies and introduced the sheepmeat regime, which is of such benefit to Scotland.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Minister aware that what he has agreed on sugar beet quotas and levies is a setback rather than an encouragement for the future of the Tate and Lyle refinery in Liverpool? In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), I should make it clear that that closure is not acceptable to the people of Liverpool, that it is being resisted by the unions, and that they are supported by the Opposition.

Mr. Walker: It is incredible effrontery on the part of the Opposition to suggest that the announcement that I have reduced the sugar beet quota by 182,000 tonnes below the quota that they agreed is against the interests of Tate and Lyle.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 13 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. A. W. Stallard
Mr. Sydney Chapman
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That any remaining stages of the Gas Levy Bill may be taken immediately after the Report thereof notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.—[Mr. Cope.]

Rates (Limitation and Procedure for Increases)

Mr. William Shelton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit to the level of inflation rate increases made by local authorities, the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority; to enable such authorities to raise additional monies from their ratepayers within one financial year only through one or more supplementary rates, each of which must be required to be paid before another one may be levied; to require no supplementary rate demand to exceed 25 per cent. of the initial rate increase; and to establish that both the Greater London Council and the Inner London Authority shall precept directly and independently on the ratepayers in their areas.
I am sure that the House will agree that one of the foundations of local democracy is that local authorities should have the power to raise moneys from their citizens and to spend it as they wish. Although the central Government provide the majority of the money that they spend, the power of local authorities is more than symbolic. If all the moneys came from the central Government, or if the central Government imposed a strict ceiling on local government expenditure, inevitably the central Government would gradually assume the responsibilities of local government and would become enmeshed in running local councils throughout the country, which I am sure the House would view with some alarm.
In the past this system has worked fairly well. Nevertheless, I believe that the general view in the House—and I welcome the statement made recently by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—is that sooner or later the rates system must be changed. It is an unjust tax. However, that is not the burden of my remarks today.
There is a more immediate problem—the sea change that has taken place in the customary collaboration between the Government and local authorities. In some local authorities a new breed of men has grown up. Martians from outer space have come into some of our local authorities. A new breed of hard-faced men from the Left, with bizarre spending programmes, has come into being and its main accomplishment is waste and mismanagement.
In the borough of Lambeth, in which my constituency lies, the ratepayer has become a hunted species. The object of the Bill is to preserve and save at least the ratepayers in Lambeth and in other councils throughout the country.
In the year 1978–79, the borough of Lambeth spent about £50 million. Two years later, in 1980–81, which finishes in a month or two months, the borough has spent £96 million plus. In less than three years it has increased its expenditure by £45 million from a base of just over £50 million.
Opposition Members may cry that that is the result of Government cuts. I should tell those few hon. Gentleman opposite that the effect of Government cuts was less than £45 million over two and three-quarter years. I should add that there has been no obvious increase or improvement in vital services in the borough.
This sad story of waste and mismanagement has caused grave hardship both commercially and domestically. At a meeting in the town hall on 17 February the director of finance for Lambeth reported to the policy and resources


committee the possibility of a first-time-ever rates strike. That must be of grave concern to the House, as it is novel in local government.
I do not suggest that leave should be given to legislate for only one borough. We have before us the examples of Camden and of the Inner London Education Authority. Should the May elections go the wrong way for the Greater London Council—I do not believe that they will—the Labour group on the GLC has already promised to double the GLC rate. Other councils are also following this sad path trodden by both Lambeth and Camden.
However, the situation changed dramatically in January this year. It was electrified by the introduction of a supplementary rate by the borough of Lambeth. That electrified the situation for three reasons. First, it was unexpected; secondly, only a short time was given for the payment of the supplementary rate; and, thirdly, and most important, it was received by many people in flats, in council accommodation and in multi-occupation who do not normally receive rate demands. They pay rates with their weekly rent. Therefore, they are not aware of the money that is taken from them by the council. This rate demand arrived like a bombshell on their doorsteps. I need hardly tell the House of the ferment of indignation and rage that has been exhibited in Lambeth. In only three weeks, a petition organised by the joint chambers of commerce has received more than 15,000 signatures.
Because of what I have seen in Lambeth and because of what I know is happening in other councils, I am asking for leave to bring in this unpretentious little Bill.
The Bill consists of three parts. The first part provides that annual rate rises should have a ceiling on them. They should not be allowed to be more than the going rate of inflation. One hopes that most will be below that. Nevertheless, no rate rise should be more than the going rate of inflation when that rate is introduced at Budget time in April.
But one cannot leave the matter there, for the reason that I have already given—that, should rates be fixed at a ceiling, the central Government will become involved. Therefore, the second provision that I propose is that should a council wish to raise additional funds during the year it may do so, but only through the mechanism of one or more supplementary rates, and that each supplementary rate—one would hope that it would be only one—should not be more than 25 per cent. of the increase in the April rate, and that no second supplementary rate should be introduced until the due date for payment of the prior rate has passed.
The third object of the Bill is that both the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority should precept direct; they should send their rate demands independently and direct to the ratepayer, not to the borough.
What would be the result of this simple legislation? In April last year the Lambeth rate, instead of being 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., would have been 16 per cent., 17 per cent., 18 per cent., or whatever the rate of inflation was. In order to raise the funds that Lambeth has raised this year, I calculate that it would have needed eight supplementary rates at intervals of six weeks throughout the year.
Leaving aside the administrative problem, I am assured that the cost would not be very much. But I assure the

House that such a procedure would have so daunted even Lambeth Council that it would have hesitated. It would have retrenched and cut out the waste that is so obvious in Lambeth and it would not have had a supplementary rate or, at most, it would have had only one or two supplementary rates.
Either the Government will have to cap the rate rises, in which case the Government will become enmeshed, or the democratic knowledge of the ratepayers will have to be brought to bear on overspending councils. That is the burden of my message. The procedure that I suggest would mean an increased democratic awareness on the part of all the ratepayers of any council, should that council wish to spend more money than the going rate of inflation in that year. This is not only democratic but unobjectionable. We would say to the councils that they could spend what they please, but if they wished to spend more than the going rate of inflation they would have to tell all their ratepayers through their supplementary rate.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is rising to oppose.

Mr. Dubs: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose this proposal.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) seems to be totally obsessed by Lambeth council. In speech after speech in this House over the last year and a half he seems to have talked about nothing but that local authority. Whatever Conservative Members think, there is a whole world outside Lambeth council. The hon. Gentleman's Bill seeks to affect local government in the country as a whole and not just in Lambeth.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman referred to the coming Greater London Council elections. He said that if Labour were to win there would be an increase in rates because of the extra and improved services which would be provided. He then bemoaned that. However, that seems to be the answer to the argument. If the people of London think that London would be better off under a Labourcontrolled GLC, that is their choice at an election. Why should the hon. Gentleman seek to circumvent the right of the people of London to give effect to their wishes? The Bill would restrict the powers of the GLC to operate.
The real issue is the independence of local government. The hon. Member appears to wish that local authorities should become little more than the agents of the Government. We have already gone a long way in that direction as a result of the Government's efforts. The hon. Member seeks to take that process further. He knows that if the Bill were to have effect, the task of local government throughout the country would be made more difficult. He is advocating a course which would lead to bureaucracy going mad.
Not only would Labour-controlled local authorities be affected by the provision; Conservative boroughs, which are at the moment seeking to impose rate increases well ahead of the rate of inflation, would be affected. For instance, Westminster city council is intending to increase its rates in the coming year by 23 per cent.; Sutton by 25 per cent.; Kensington and Chelsea by about 50 per cent.; Harrow by 36 per cent.; and Havering by 25 per cent. In my area, it is likely that Wandsworth council, which is so


beloved of the Conservative Party, will increase its rates by 30 per cent. Why are those Tory-controlled local authorities, as well as Labour ones, increasing their rates well above the rate of inflation? The reason is that the Government's rate support grant procedures have imposed this additional burden on local authorities.
If we are to have index linking of rates, what about index linking of rents? What about linking the rent increases in local authorities to the rates of inflation? I am sure that the council rent payers of Wandsworth would welcome that. In the last two years, the rent payers in council property in Wandsworth have seen rents rise by 88 per cent. when the rate of inflation has been about 35 per cent.
The level of rates in every local authority is a matter of political judgment for the local councillors who have been elected to that local authority. They must take their decisions in the light of the promises which they made when they were elected. It is their job to strike a balance between the services that they offer and the rates that must be levied to provide those services.
The hon. Gentleman's proposals would be costly. Supplementary rates and a separate precept would cost more to collect, and to have to do it eight times over would be an additional burden on the ratepayers.
The Government have already threatened the independence of many local authorities through the rate support grant procedure. The Bill would make a bad situation worse. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject it.

Question put, pursuant to Starding Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 175.

Division No. 83]
[4 15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Fox, Marcus


Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bell, SirRonald
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, HonA.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bowden, Andrew
Hawkins, Paul


Braine, SirBernard
Heddle, John


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butcher, John
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Anthony


Churchill, W.S.
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th,S'n)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clark, SirW. (CroydonS)
Knox, David


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael


Costain, SirAlbert
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Elliott, SirWilliam
Marlow, Tony



Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith,Dudley


Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Sproat, Iain


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Page, John (Harrow, Wast)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Thorne,Neil(IlfordSouth)


Page, Richard (SWHerts)
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Walker, B. (Perth)


Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon SirD.


Rathbone, Tim
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Ridsdale, Julian
Wheeler,John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. William Shelton and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


NOES


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin

Alton, David
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Forrester,John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek


Beith, A.J.
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt HonA. Wedgwood
Freud, Clement


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (NorwichS)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Hamilton, W.W. (C'tral Fife)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, RtHon Walter


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Haynes, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cartwright, John
Heffer, EricS.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Homewood, William


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Concannon, RtHon J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Crowther, J.S.
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)
John, Brynmor


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, RusselI (Inverness)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davis, T. (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Donald
Kerr, Russell


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Neil


Dormand, Jack
Lamborn, Harry


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Dunlop, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mabon, Rt Hon DrJ. Dickson


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Hugh


Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Fitch, Alan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)






McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Robert
Sever, John


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Silkin, Rt HonJ.(Deptford)


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Maynard, MissJoan
Silverman, Julius


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (NLanark)


Mitchell, R.C.(Soton ltchen)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Soley, Clive


Morton, George
Spearing, Nigel


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Palmer, Arthur
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Tilley, John


Penhaligon, David
Tinn, James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Prescott, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, R.(ColneV)


Race, Reg
Watkins, David


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Whitehead, Phillip


Richardson, Jo
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Robertson, George
Young, David (BoltonE)


Rooker, J. W.



Roper, John
Tellers for trie Noes:


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Gas Levy Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

GAS LEVY

Mr. Edward Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out "1980–81" and insert "1981–82".

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out line 28.

Mr. Rowlands: These amendments are designed to remove, at least in part, some of the retroactive nature of this gas tax. The House has always expressed grave concern and doubt about any retrospective legislation, especially that which involves retroactive taxation. We are a fortnight away from the Budget and a month away from the end of the financial year, yet we are still trying to pass through the House a new major tax that will be backdated to April of last year.
That in itself would be a matter of considerable concern, but there is also the fact that the background to the introduction of the tax has led to many expressions of concern about the Government's handling of it—particularly on the question whether the Government did not take a fairly fundamental approach in arrangements and agreements reached between Ministers and British Gas at the beginning of last year.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State chose to present to the House a very selective and partial historical account of how the Bill came into being. He started his account in May 1980, which was when he announced—incidentally by means of a written answer, yet another subterfuge frequently used by the Government—the introduction of this major new tax. In fact, the history of this tax should begin in January 1980, with the Secretary of State's major statement to the House about the financial provisions, structure and targets of British Gas.
It is small wonder that the right hon. Gentleman made little reference to the statement of 16 January 1980, because that was supposed to be the definitive forward planning statement about the finances of British Gas. It was supposed to be, as he called it himself, a fundamental statement. He said:
It is a fundamental objective of this Government's policy towards the nationalised industries that they should be set a clear financial discipline.
Those words have a certain poignancy this week, after one major statement already on the financial discipline of one nationalised industry and with another due in the next week or so, presumably, after today's talks.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
We therefore opened discussions with the gas and electricity industries on the medium-term financial targets for the period 1980–81 and 1982–83. The external financial limits for 1980–81 announced last November were set in the light of


these discussions, which have now been satisfactorily concluded."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1644.]
So on 16 January 1980 the Secretary of State made a definitive statement on the whole financial arrangements, the financial targets, the rate of return, and so on, which the Government expected of the British Gas Corporation.
This was heralded as an illustration of the new Whiz Kid approach to the financing and forward planning of the nationalised industries. Yet within four months of that statement the right hon. Gentleman ripped the whole thing up unilaterally. That is the allegation that is made against the Government about the way in which they introduced the Bill—a measure that will tax the British Gas Corporation even for the year 1980–81. On 8 May 1980, four months after their original announcement, the Government ripped up unilaterally the financial arrangements and agreements that they had made with British Gas and that they claimed had been satisfactorily concluded after discussions with the corporation.
Let us see how the Secretary of State, in his statement of 8 May, proposed to change the arrangements that he had announced originally in January 1980 First, he proposed to change the financial targets. Although he had made great play of the 9 per cent. target in January 1980, he reduced it to 3½ per cent. in order to substitute the money that he was going to get via the national loans fund by the gas levy that we are debating this afternoon. Secondly, he altered the whole of the financial arrangements for the financial year 1980–81 and, indeed, for the whole of 1982 and 1983, setting different targets and establishing a completely different principle for the handing over of the money to the Government by the British Gas Corporation. If this is supposed to be modern Tory forward planning, God help us. Within four months of announcing one set of arrangements for a major nationalised industry the right hon. Gentleman changed them all by introducing this gas levy.
What happened between January 1980 and May 1980 that led him to make the changes that are now the subject of the Bill through which he seeks to claim £130 million in gas levy for the financial year that has nearly ended—a levy that the House has not approved? In introducing the Bill on Second Reading the Secretary of State's sole justification was the windfall nature of British Gas profits. Suddenly it appears that the Government discovered that as a result of their original proposal there would be large windfall profits accruing to British Gas. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had to be creamed off, for the most curious and interesting of reasons. Until I re-read the Second Reading debate I did not notice one of the most curious reasons given. The right hon. Gentleman said:
By removal of the unearned windfall, the corporation will be left in a more normal commercial situation. This will help to encourage it to maintain standards of efficiency which would otherwise have been at risk."—[Official Report, 15 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 71.]
Apparently, if an organisation makes a considerable profit, it has to be creamed off, because the organisation is in great danger of becoming inefficient. If that is the argument, do we assume that in order to maintain the efficiency of the banks and to make sure that their efficiency is not put at grave risk as a result of the windfall profits that have accrued to them because of the Government's interest rate policy, that novel new doctrine

of Tory profitability will be applied to the banking system with the same vigour as, apparently, the Government are attempting to apply it to the British Gas Corporation?
That could not have been the reason why we had amajor change between January and May 1980, because the corporation warned the Government, as did hon. Members on both sides of the House, that if they pursued a financial target of 9 per cent. and produced a crazy combination of massive gas price increases and a 9 per cent. financial target it would lead to embarrassingly large profits for British Gas. Those profits were known and acknowledged by the Government in January. It was not something that they suddenly discovered after the statement of 16 January.
So what is the reason why we are to have a gas levy retroactive to April 1980, which will raise £130 million in this financial year, which is nearly finished? Why did we have the change? Why was the gas levy introduced after the arrangements that were made with the corporation had been announced formally to the House on 16 January? I should like to put a number of questions to the Minister. First, when the corporation was concluding satisfactorily its discussions on the three-year financial structure, did the Secretary of State indicate or even suggest to it that the Government intended within four months to introduce a new major tax levy on the corporation? In January 1980, when the corporation thought that it had concluded satisfactorily an agreement, was it advised, or was it even suggested to it, that within four months there would be a completely new tax levy on the corporation, backdated to April 1980? These are the questions to which I would very much like to have a clear "Yea" or "Nay" when the Minister replies.
Why have we a retrospective gas levy on the corporation, backdated to April 1980 and not yet approved by Parliament in February 1981? There is only one reason that makes any sense why the Secretary of State should suddenly rip up well-defined and clearly understood financial arrangements and agreements made with the corporation and announced in the House in January 1980. That was the howl of protest that arose over the whole of the gas price policy of the Government. We heard many reports of this. Many hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee told us in informal conversations that in the constituencies they had never felt such strength of feeling amongst the women's sections and amongst their traditional supporters after the announcement made by the Secretary of State about the crazy policy to raise gas prices by 27½ per cent. in 1980 and to serve on the gas consumers another 25 per cent. increase in this financial year. It was the justifiable reaction and outrage that was felt not only by consumers of whichever party but particularly of the Conservative Party that led the Government to throw the bone to the howling dogs behind them in the form of this gas levy.
That is why the Government are now trying to impose on British Gas a levy of £130 million, backdated to April 1980. We await an adequate explanation for the change in policy between January and May 1980. Above all, when the Minister replies to the debate we would like him to state whether he can refute all the evidence that stares us in the face that the Government fundamentally breached a clearly defined financial arrangement, made in good faith with the British Gas Corporation and announced in the House only four months earlier.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): The effect of the two amendments together, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has said, would be that the gas levy would start on 1 April 1981. It would be postponed for a year. As the hon. Member said, the effect of this would be that the British Gas Corporation would be left with profits of £130 million more.
The Government's proposals for the rate of levy inevitably involve a degree of judgment. The whole purpose and aim of the levy Bill has been to remove from the BGC the unearned windfall resulting from the increasing value of gas purchased under the old low-price contracts, the contracts that are exempt from petroleum revenue tax. It is because of the special nature of those very longstanding low-price contracts that there is this windfall gain to the BGC. That is what the Bill is about—taking that away from the BGC.
The hon. Gentleman's proposal would have the effect of making the profits of the BGC considerably higher. It would, therefore, also raise the return on assets being earned by the corporation. It would mean that there would be more money retained by the corporation— money that it does not need. Looking at the corporation's investment plans and at its financial requirements, it is the Government's judgment that the levy should be pitched at a rate of 1p a therm in 1980–81, 3p a therm in 1981–82, and 5p a therm in 1982–83.
The hon. Member referred to the adjustment in the financial target. I ought to point out that the adjustment from 9 per cent. to 3½ per cent. does not require any change on the part of the BGC, its policies, or what it is going to do. It is simply the same financial target expressed in post-levy terms. It is simply the same plans, investment programme and marketing policy. It is simply that that financial target has been adjusted arithmetically to account for the levy. There is no change required in the BGC's policy. There is no change in policy marked by the adjustment of the financial target. It is a purely arithmetical adjustment.
It seemed to us that the level of the levy in the Bill was appropriate having regard to the returns being made by industry elsewhere in our economy. Also, it was appropriate because we believe that the BGC will be perfectly able to finance its investment programme. It will be spending some £4 billion on strengthening the transmission system, bringing more gas to British industry and to domestic consumers who so urgently want it. That money will come from not just the profits of the corporation, which will be about £300 million in each year.r j 1–5 even after this levy, but the corporation will have its profits, plus its depreciation, plus the money that it has on deposit with the National Loans Fund. So there is plenty of money available for the corporation's investment programme.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister said that it was an arithmetical adjustment to turn a loan from the Government into a straightforward hand-over of a very large sum of money. Is that just mere arithmetic?

Mr. Lamont: What I said was a mere arithmetical adjustment was expressing a financial target of 9 per cent., before the levy was introduced, adjusted to 3½ per cent. after the levy was introduced. That is simply a

mathematical adjustment. It makes no difference to what is happening in the real world, or to what the BGC is doing or has to do.
Having made the point—as I hope I have—that we believe that the BGC has plenty of money for its investment programme, the point I make to the hon. Gentleman is that the BGC does not need this extra £130 million that the effect of the amendment would hand over to it.
4.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman challenged the idea, but we do not believe that giving the BGC money that is surplus to its investment plans and to its working requirements is conducive to the efficiency of the organisation. The hon. Gentleman poured great scorn on this idea. He said that we had always believed that, if companies make high profits, that reflects efficiency. He must be well aware, however, that often in the private sector there are circumstances in which companies that have no need of money for investment decide to make a repayment to their shareholders out of their share capital. That happens from time to time. The argument that surplus cash is likely to lower the incentive to efficiency is not a new or strange argument. It is one that applies in the private sector as well as in the public sector.
As I have said, the proposed amendment would mean a loss of proceeds of levy for the current financial year. That would increase the return on capital of the BGC, and it would also have the effect of increasing the deposits that the BGC makes with the NLF. We think that that is inappropriate and unnecessary. It goes against the whole purpose of the Bill, which is, as I have said, to remove the windfall profit and the amount of windfall gain that normally would have been paid in PRT. But in this situation PRT is not payable. For that reason, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument goes against the whole purpose of the Bill.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's specific arguments. First, he objected because the Bill was retroactive. The effect of the Bill is to go back to April of the current financial year. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a point. The Bill is technically retroactive as to the period between April and May of last year. The levy was announced in May, whereas the levy goes back to April.
It is a quite common situation, even with income taxes, that the date of collection and of liability for income tax runs from the date of the passing of the statute through Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman has a point as regards the gap between April and May. Although he has a point, I do not think that that amounts to a great threat to the liberty of the subject. This is a tax that is being levied on the BGC, on one nationalised industry alone.
The second point that the hon. Gentleman developed at some length was that there was a contradiction between what the Government announced in January and the announcement that we made about this levy later in the year, in May. The announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in January was of three-year financial targets for the industry—something that had been talked about for a long time and had been considered by the previous Government. The nationalised industries have wanted for a long time to have a three-year financial target. It was important to make that announcement in January, because it had implications for pricing. If it had not been announced in January, consultations between the


British Gas Corporation and the consultative councils could not have taken place in February. In addition, the corporation's pricing proposals could not have been implemented in April. That is why the announcement was made in January.
In addition, the announcement had to be made then because there were implications for prices—both industrial and domestic. Without that time scale, decisions about prices could not have been taken. However, when the announcement was made, the Government understood that it would have a considerable effect on the corporation's profits. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's implication, this did not come as a great surprise to the Government. Actually, we can add up. We could see that it would have an effect on the corporation's profits.
Two routes were open to the Government. First, we could have continued the mechanism whereby the corporation deposits money with the NLF. Secondly, we could have introduced the levy. The Government wished to consider those two options. A financial target had to be set, because of the implications for pricing. However, the Government also wished to consider whether the arrangements whereby the corporation deposits surplus cash with the NLF should continue or whether the windfall gain should be removed from the corporation permanently and irretrievably through the levy. Ultimately, that is what the Government decided to do. That is the reason for the timing. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil was not right to say that an understanding with the corporation had been ripped up. The corporation's marketing and financial objectives are the same as those agreed on. The Government set the corporation a financial discipline—which they knew had certain implications for pricing—and that remains.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister seems to be equating the option of whether the money should go into the NLF or whether it should be collected once and for all in the form of a levy, with the corporation's pricing policy. That is the most spurious argument I have heard. The Minister knows that the levy or tax has nothing to do with the corporation's pricing policy. That has been dictated by the Secretary of State, who has said that there must be an increase every year that equals the rate of inflation plus 10 per cent. Why is the Minister pursuing such a spurious argument?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is right to to say that the gas levy will not have any impact on prices. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, who is sitting on the Front Bench, says the opposite. Later in the debate, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reminded of what he said: the levy will not have any impact on pricing. However, it is right to say that the financial target—the return on assets—that has been set for the corporation has implications for pricing. That would be true for any Administration that set a financial target for any public sector industry. Inevitably, it would have consequences for the industry's pricing policy. However, it is up to the industry to work it out in detail.

Mr. Brown: The Minister is saying that any transfer to the NLF—which would involve many millions of pounds that would still belong to the BGC—would have serious implications for future pricing policy. The BGC

might find itself without the necessary funds for the investment that it will badly need within the next two or three years.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The decision to have a levy instead of deposits with the NLF will not have any effect on pricing. Mention has already been made of what will probably happen to domestic prices in the next three years. Even if the Bill were withdrawn it would make no difference. The price of gas will not increase faster as a result of this Bill. If the Bill were withdrawn, it would make no difference to the price of gas.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: A moment ago, the Minister said that, if the BGC had been a private company, it would have made a return to the shareholders. In this case, the nation is the shareholder. The banks have made very large profits, which they have shared with their shareholders, institutions and others. Given that this is a State corporation, how will the shareholders fare? If the money is returned to the Treasury it will go into the Consolidated Fund and people will not benefit.

Mr. Lamont: I sought to answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), namely, whether the BGC needs the surplus cash? The hon. Gentleman put the proposition that it was curious to argue that the surplus cash was not conducive to efficiency. However, we do not think that it is. Having scrutinised the corporation's investment plans, we know that it does not need the amount of profit that will be generated without the levy. As a result of profits, depreciation and deposits with the NLF, the BGC has ample money to finance all its investment. Of course, it will need a substantial investment programme if it is to meet the rising demand for gas. At peak times, there is excess demand for gas. Therefore, more investment is needed.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the windfall element that arises from the old, low-priced contracts, which are exempt from petroleum revenue tax. It seems equitable that the corporation should be put on the same footing as companies that pay PRT. Therefore, this is a commonsense measure. As the amendment conflicts with the Bill's main purpose, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Rowlands: We shall pursue a number of the points that the Minister has raised about prices, the levy's effect on the corporation's investment policy and industrial gas prices in our discussion of the next group of amendments. Therefore, I shall not pursue them now.
However, when the Minister reads Hansard tomorrow and reconsiders terms such as "adjusted arithmetically", and when he reads of his contention that that is all that the Bill involves—£1·3 billion of taxation—he will realise that he has made one of the quotes of the week.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Mr. Norman Lamont rose—

Mr. Rowlands: Within a few sentences of the Minister speaking about arithmetic adjustment, he said that the purpose of the clause and of the rate of levy was to remove permanently a large sum of money from the BGC. If the Minister does not believe that that has considerable significance for the financial organisation and structure of


the corporation, I can only imagine that he has not recently spoken to the chairman of the BGC or to its employees. They passionately believe that it does have significance.
The hon. Gentleman used another phrase that will be resented by those in the gas industry. He said that the Government were giving the corporation money. The Government have not given the corporation money. The money belongs to the corporation. It is earned by those who work in the corporation and by the large-scale distribution and sale of its products. In no way did the Government give the British Gas Corporation money.
The Minister rested the whole of his case for the windfall tax on the fact that the British Gas Corporation has benefited enormously from some early contracts that, incidentally, were negotiated by it with great skill and professionalism before 1975. He said that the Government were simply creaming off the windfall gain derived from those contracts. But that is not the only cause for the very large windfall profit. One of the main causes is the incredible and zany pricing policy that the Government have followed for the last 12 months. It has embarrassed the British Gas Corporation and caused great consternation between the corporation and its domestic and industrial consumers.
5 pm
Although we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, the Minister must not believe that we are letting his arguments go by default. As I indicated, we shall have the opportunity later to take up several of the issues that were raised in his reply to this group of amendments.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

RATE OF LEVY

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'three pence' and insert 'one penny'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 5, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'five pence' and insert 'one penny'.
No.6, in page 2, line 33, leave out 'different from' and insert 'lower than'.

Mr. Rowlands: It will be our wish, unless we get a satisfactory explanation, to divide on amendment No. 6.
The first two amendments aim to reduce the levy, but the third amendment—and, for our part, the most important—attempts to limit the power of the Minister to revise by mere parliamentary order the rates listed in the clause. We believe that he should have the power to lower the rate but that if he wishes to raise it he should come back to the House with fresh legislation. He should certainly not have the power to interfere with and change the rates upwards within the next three financial years, thereby imposing additional levies on the British Gas Corporation.
The amendments also provide us with the opportunity to discover exactly what will be the impact of the levy on the finance and investment programme of the British Gas

Corporation, and particularly on its prices. We shall seek, during the course of the debate on the amendments, to get a much clearer and more definitive statement as to how the Government see the impact of the levy and the effect of it on the investment policies of the BGC and on its pricing policy, especially in relation to industry.
During the Second Reading debate on the Bill, several hon. Members in all parts of the House expressed considerable concern about the effect of savage gas price increases on industrial consumers, large and small. It was a common theme which ran through the debate. It has also arisen regularly at Question Time over the last 12 months.
In a marvellous and typically dismissive speech, the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) spoke passionately on behalf of a large number of people in describing the impact of the Government's industrial gas price policy and the zany decision to impose additional energy costs on British companies which are already struggling to survive the recession and to beat international competition at a time when there is a very strong pound.
The right hon. Gentleman summed up the position well when he said:
Another aspect must be questioned. I am proud to have in my constituency both Wedgwood and Cornings, which is an important glass manufacturer. I must question whether, at a time when unemployment is rising faster in the West Midlands than anywhere else, it is proper to impose a burden on the gas industry, especially when in most instances our prices are considerably higher than those in competitive countries. I therefore question very much the policies put forward by my right hon. Friend in relation to gas."—[Official Report, 16 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 80.]
So do many other hon. Members in all parts of the House. They also question seriously the policies which have been put forward by the Government on gas prices, and in particular the impact of those price increases on our industrial competitiveness in relation to vital orders, particularly in regard to exports.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote some specific examples. He questioned whether it made any sense to impose additional energy costs on companies during a time of recession, and listed a series of comparative prices in pottery manufacturing and in the glass industry, demonstrating the differential in gas costs between companies in Staffordshire and companies in France.
There seem to be smiles from the Government Front Bench at the problems of the glass industry and of Wedgwood and Cornings and the horticultural industry. Perhaps this is indicative of the way in which the Government have responded to the demands and calls made by hon. Members in all parts of the House that the Government should consider the impact of their gas prices policy on the whole of British industry. Members of the Government appear to be the only people not to know that in industry after industry the high gas prices have had a very serious effect on the competitiveness of individual firms.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I am sure that we are all listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but will he please explain to the House with some care and precision exactly how the levy increases domestic and industrial gas prices?

Mr. Rowlands: If the hon.Gentleman will contain himself and listen to the full presentation of the case, he will be able to hear the questions that I shall put in order


to find out the relationship between the gas levy and the whole of the pricing and investment policy of the British Gas Corporation. I shall also be seeking to see whether it will be possible to do something about industrial gas prices in the coming financial year.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The industrial pricing policy of the British Gas Corporation is the same under this Administration as it was under the previous Administration. Is the hon. Gentleman repudiating that policy? Does he think that there should not be any link at all between industrial gas prices and oil prices?

Mr. Rowlands: I am pleased that my argument is arousing so much interest. If the Minister will bear with me, he will find that during the course of my presentation I shall explain exactly how we see that relationship. I shall be putting several questions to him about the Government's policy concerning industrial gas prices.
The Government should recognise what has already happened to parts of British industry as a result of their energy and fuel pricing policy. Only this week we have had the tragic announcement of the planned closure of Duport in Llanelli, with the loss of over 1,000 jobs. It has meant the closure of a new £20 million furnace that was financed and opened only a year ago. I am told that the energy costs of that works were greater than the wage costs. [Interruption.] The complacency of Ministers over the past year concerning the impact of the Government's gas pricing policy on industry and on its competitiveness—particularly in relation to export orders—has astounded and shocked many firms and industrialists in this country. [Interruption.] The glib responses that the Minister is seeking to make from a sedentary position are illustrative of the lack of response by the Government, and their lack of willingness to respond early enough and fast enough to legitimate complaints about their gas pricing policy.
While energy Ministers quibble over figures, the industry has been collapsing. They are still quibbling over figures. We are still waiting for the famous NEDC report. We understand that it is now due on 4 March. When will there be action on it by the Government?
It is not only because gas is in short supply for industry, and that therefore a high price must be demanded, that the free market prevails in gas prices. In South Wales, for example, gas sales to industry have fallen in the past 12 months by 25 per cent., as a result of the depression that has hit the Principality. That is a terrible commentary on the economic climate and environment of the Principality. In the past 12 months there has not been a great shortage of gas for industry. All that has happened is that there has been a large increase in gas prices to industry, despite the collapse in demand that has occurred in some areas. A 25 per cent. reduction is formidable and a sad comment on the state of the economy, the economic environment and climate created by the Government.
We are right to take the opportunity to discover what impact the levy at the rates proposed will have upon industry's hopes of significant help. As I develop that point I think it will answer the two questions raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). What impact will the levy and the rates proposed in the Bill have upon industry's hopes for significant help with industrial gas prices? What effect will it have on the British

investment programme? What is the Government's policy towards industrial gas prices? I shall consider the last question first.
The Secretary of State has confessed that he is the culprit, that he is to blame for the exceptionally savage rise in domestic gas prices. He has admitted that in the House and before the Select Committee. He stands either condemned or exalted for it. I suspect the former. His statements on his role and his responsibility for the almost equally savage rise in industrial gas prices have been more ambiguous. In considering the rates for the levy, we are entitled to find out more clearly what will be the Government's view on industrial gas prices in the coming financial year.
Last Monday, as on earlier occasions, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government endorsed the view of British Gas on industrial gas prices for the past financial year. Is that so? What was the British Gas Corporation's attitude last March to industrial gas pricing policies? Did the corporation at any time warn the Government that the price levels it had to apply because of financial targets would cause difficulties, specifically in price comparisons with the Continent? When gas prices were being fixed last spring and problems were arising in many parts of industry, did the corporation tell the Government that if it continued to pursue its policy there would be difficulties and that its prices would go out of line with prices in Europe?
If so, what was the Government's reaction to those warnings? It is important to know whether the Government have been spilling crocodile tears over industrial gas consumer prices in the past 12 months or whether they have been not just a party to but a promoter of a system whereby industrial gas prices have been higher than necessary? That is a fundamental question that I hope the Minister will answer.
5.15 pm
The reason why we think that this is a most ill-timed levy is that we are on the eve of, we hope, a major statement of the Government's policy towards industrial energy costs in general. We were told on Monday that on 4 March the NEDC report would be published and would be the subject of a meeting on that day. The Minister told us that British Gas has already taken steps to cushion the effect of the steep industrial price increases that have occurred.
I was asked about policy. I shall tell the Minister what I think the policy should be. I believe that the British Gas Corporation will be willing to do more than it has already done to assist industrial consumers. It should be asked to stabilise industrial contract prices and to hold interruptible supply prices through this year.
The relevance of the levy is this: where will the money come from? How much will it cost if that policy is adopted? That is the pertinent and proper connection between a policy on industrial gas prices and the rates of the levy in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will support my suggestion that we should ask the British Gas Corporation to try to stabilise industrial gas prices for this year. How much would it cost if the price were held at the average of renewed contracts and if we held the interruptible supply price through this year? Prices were supposed to increase in steps, quarter by quarter. If we tried to stabilise


industrial gas prices in the next financial year, what would be the loss in revenue to British Gas if it followed such a policy?
I have heard that adopting such a policy would cost about £100 million in lost revenue this year. Hon. Members on both sides will recognise the relevance of a decision to lose £100 million worth of revenue to assist the industrial gas consumers and help to stabilise industrial gas prices. If the cost is £100 million, where will the money come from?
The gas levy will make the situation worse. That is the relevance of our amendments. Any relief that the corporation could give will cause loss of profitability, as the levy will continue to be a fixed drain on its activities. I hope that I shall carry some Conservative Members with me in saying that the Government must be flexible in applying the levy rates.
Without the levy the corporation could have covered and carried the cost that we are suggesting—£100 million of lost revenue—to stabilise gas prices for industrial gas consumers. It could do so if the levy were not applied or if the levels proposed for the next financial year were lower. If the full levy is raised—we have had no contrary indication—the impact on British Gas finances could be considerable, both on its current activities and its investment programme.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the Government ask British Gas, or if it volunteers, to assist in a major price stabilisation policy for industrial gas consumers this year, the heavy cost of the loss of revenue will be offset against the levy? Will he amend the rate accordingly?

Mr. Skeet: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is he referring to heavy users of energy, or is he talking about those companies—there are many of them in the United Kingdom—whose energy costs are only about 2 or 3 per cent. of total costs?

Mr. Rowlands: I am expressing a personal view. I do not know what the view of British Gas is on this matter. I believe that if it adopted a policy of price stabilisation for industry it should be a general policy rather than one in which the corporation tried to identify individual firms or industries. I think of the small engineering company that uses gas, albeit marginally. A firm in my constituency had price increases of 35 per cent. last year and it faces a similar increase this year. It is fighting for its life and its exports. It has been heavily export-oriented. Whatever marginal assistance can be given to companies as small as that, even if they are small consumers of gas, will be most welcome and helpful.
The Government should ask the corporation, or it may well volunteer, to try in this financial year to produce a major stabilisation policy for industrial gas prices, rather than continue to let them rise, as has been planned. The cost of such a policy in lost revenue could be considerable—about £100 million. Will the Government give an assurance that if that is so it can be offset against the cost of the levy? The easiest way would be to reduce the levy to accommodate British Gas's lost revenue.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is not advocating a similar subsidy or price freeze for the domestic gas

consumer but is referring simply to industry? Is he aware that if there were such a subsidy or freeze British Gas would be asked to sell at below its marginal cost of supply gas that it has to buy from the Norwegian gasfields to supplement its own gas, at about 10 times the price that it is paying for its cheapest gas supplies in United Kingdom waters? Is that correct?

Mr. Rowlands: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's last point is correct. Only British Gas can answer that.
The answer to the hon.Gentleman's first point is that throughout I have used the words "commercial" and "industrial". I have not used the word "domestic". We can have another debate about whether the Government's policy towards domestic consumers is good. My recommendation of a major stabilisation programme for gas prices refers to industrial gas prices.
I do not know how valid was the hon. Gentleman's second point. I know that British Gas could accommodate the cost of such a stabilisation policy—at, say, £100 million—if it retained the profits without the levy, though I do not think that it could do so easily. That is the relevance of the rate of the levy and an industrial gas price stabilisation policy. There is a direct link.
If British Gas is asked to adopt such a policy, or volunteers to do so, to help industry in a year of deep recession, however marginal the assistance in some cases, it will lose £100 million in revenue. Unless the levy is reduced, this will mean the loss of £100 million, when the profits of British Gas—as the Minister showed in replying to the first debate—will be flattened out at about £300 million a year for each of the next three years. That loss is too large a sum to be borne in addition to handing over the moneys required—£420 million or whatever—in 1981–82 at the present rate of levy.
I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the point. I hope that he will have some sympathy with my view. That loss of revenue should be taken out of the gas levy, not from the revenues of British Gas, if such a policy is adopted, as we would ask.
My request is connected with the British Gas investment programme. As the Minister said earlier, the corporation is to embark upon a major investment programme in the next few years. The hon. Gentleman quoted a figure of £4,000 million. There is the exciting Morecambe Bay field, involving £1 billion worth of expenditure over the five years. There is the Rough field, which the corporation has acquired from an oil company in the southern North Sea, the development cost of which will be about £600 million in five years. Both fields will be used as reservoirs, to be tapped cheaply for peak needs. That means that British Gas will not seek large immediate returns on those heavy investments. That will have considerable effects on revenue and the cost of financing the schemes—rightly so. I think that everyone agrees with that policy.
In addition, there is whatever investment British Gas will be expected to put into the gas-gathering pipeline. In our view it would have been infinitely better if the Government had let British Gas get on with it. I think that if they had, it would have started already, and we should not still be trying to cobble together a collection of banks and consortia to finance it. British Gas may well face making a heavier contribution to investment in the pipeline than was perhaps thought would be the case earlier.
Therefore, by any stretch of the imagination, British Gas has a large investment programme, which must be financed out of profits and revenue. If the levy is collected at the full rate suggested in the clause, profit levels will flatten out at about £300 million a year. If we then ask—for good, understandable reasons—for a major contribution to stabilise industrial gas prices this year, that could cost another £100 million, and then the rates of the levy could have a significant effect on British Gas revenues and investment programmes. That is the basic connection that we wish to make with the rates of levy that are the subject of the amendments.
Ministers have told us that British Gas will have enough money to finance and maintain its investment level with profits of £300 million a year. But if, quite properly and reasonably, we add to that a major additional burden, one that I hope the Government will support, of helping to stabilise industrial gas prices for many industries—horticulture, glass blowing and others—the levy could distort and seriously affect the corporation's whole pattern of investment and development. The Government could bring about an absurd situation. With a combination of the levy and financial targets, British Gas could be forced into borrowing in the next few years instead of being self-financing, as at present.
5.30 pm
I hope that we shall receive a response to the amendment in the same spirit in which I have moved it. It is a genuinely constructive attempt to offer a means of helping those in industry most seriously affected by the increase in gas prices at a time of deep recession. If it is suggested that British Gas should bear the burden of assisting industry in addition to paying the full levy proposed in the Bill for 1981–82, there will be the most strong protests not only from British Gas but from many hon. Members. All hon. Members want to help industry. I believe that British Gas wants to help. I hope that the Government, following the NEDC discussions on 4 March, will want to help industry in relation to industrial gas prices. That help will have a cost attached to it. The cost should not be a further burden on the British Gas Corporation. It should be taken out of the gas levy. The only power of the Government to affect the rates of levy in clause 2 is to lower them. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone summed up what he thought would happen by saying:
Unfortunately, we see this again and again. When the Treasury makes mistakes, it lashes out in all directions trying to scoop in everything that it can."—[Official Report, 16 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 80.]
The right hon. Gentleman pleaded with Department of Energy Ministers to fight the Treasury in this respect.
We do not believe that the Government should have power to scoop up even more than the amount for which they are now asking. We therefore ask hon. Members to support amendment No. 6 which would remove the temptation from the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Energy to raise, instead of lower, the rates of levy in the Bill.

Mr. Skeet: I note, Mr. Weatherill, that you wish hon. Members to economise in our use of time during this Committee stage, but there are one or two remarks that I feel should be made. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) did not advance the principal argument. The hon. Gentleman only touched on it at the end of his

speech. The hon. Gentleman proposes in amendment No. 6 that the words "different from" should be deleted and the words "lower than'' inserted.
Surely, the crux of the problem is that this is an open-ended situation. By regulation, the Government can replace the figures in the Bill with any figures they like. Even if hon. Members do not accept the figures laid down by the hon. Gentleman, we are placed in a difficult situation unless the Goverment give certain assurances. It may be indicated that the House of Commons would have to consent to an order. I would argue that an additional guarantee is required. There should be a requirement, not merely for the assent of the House of Commons but also for the assent of the other place. That would be an effective guarantee.

Mr. Rowlands: I looked hard at the idea of amending the reference to this House to include both Houses. I understand that, despite what the Government like to claim, this is a taxation measure and cannot be subject to an order in the other place.

Mr. Skeet: What impresses me is that the yield of the tax is £130 million in the first year, £420 million in the second year and £750 million in the third year. Some time during the next decade, gas from the Southern gasfields will come down from its present level of 75 per cent. to about 40 per cent. Assuming that the price of gas goes up substantially, we may assume that the figure will go considerably above £750 million. How much higher will the figure go? I would have thought that the Government would have to introduce a right to charge, as is normally done in water Acts. This would mean that they retained the power to levy charges without including a schedule. However, under clause 2(1 )(a), (b) and (c), the rates to be charged are indicated. As the rates to be charged are contained in the Bill, the Committee should be given an assurance on the level of the upper limit. We must have a datum line and a ceiling.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil spoilt his case by his references to industrial users and stabilisation. In an intervention, when I asked whether he was referring to all industry or to intensive energy users, he replied that he meant generally. I have a table which shows fuel costs as a percentage of total materials, fuel, wage and salary costs of various industries. At the top is iron and steel with a figure of 18½ per cent.—very intensive energy users. Next come bricks, pottery glass and cement with a figure of 18 per cent., again very intensive.
At the bottom, the figure for instrument engineering is only 2 per cent., for electrical engineering 2 per cent., and for timber and furniture 2½ percent. I shall not go through the entire list, but it shows that most industry is not affected by energy costs. It is ridiculous to suggest that these moneys should be deployed for their benefit. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil that heavy intensive energy users should be considered.
I wonder whether the Minister will give the basis for the calculations—the arithmetical assessments that he has made—of the yields, how they came into being and the assumptions behind them. I tabled a question to the Minister on this matter. I regret to say that I did not receive a very satisfactory reply. The Minister stated
The estimated yield of the proposed gas levy takes into account the British Gas Corporation's forecasts of purchases of


gas liable to the levy and the rates of the levy proposed in the Gas Levy Bill."—[Official Report, 16 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 25.]
Surely, the levy will determine its rate. The factors that enter into the matter include the increased price of domestic gas which will go up over the next two or three years substantially. This year, there will be a 25 per cent. increase. This will flow into the central pool as profit. Another factor is the anticipated increase in oil prices. It can be assumed that OPEC will advance again in the future and that it will lift oil prices significantly. If that happens, it will have a direct bearing on gas prices because gas prices are linked to oil prices. The Minister said a moment ago that he was keeping this factor very much in mind. I would like his views on the situation in a few years' time when oil prices go up and gas prices, which are connected to them, also escalate.
During the period of office of the previous Labour Government, the British Gas Corporation was working on the assumption that gas prices were based on the gas oil price. The price of gas oil is now about 40p a therm. That would be the position unless certain modifications were made. The modifications which have been made is that renewed firm contracts work out at 75 per cent. of the gas oil price. A recent modification means that new contracts are to come down to the same level.
These profits will rise substantially. That explains our concern about the rate of the levy—whether it will be the Government figure published in the draft Bill, the figure recommended by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil or a figure left entirely to be settled by regulation at some future date. We have not the foggiest idea what it will be. We seem to know, however, that the Southern fields will be with us for many years ahead. Ultimately, I daresay, they will be used as storage vessels. We know that the Government have been carrying out their own negotiations. It is known that they are prepared to pay an amount of about $4.60 per million British thermal units for Algerian liquid natural gas.
The Algerians are demanding a very much higher price. If the price that the Japanese are prepared to accept is anything to go by, it will not be long before we have a full gas/oil parity. If that comes about, the British Gas Corporation will be making a great deal of money and there may be an insufficiency of gas levy charged. The Minister must be frank. He must tell us precisely what will happen. It will not be fair to the House to leave the issue to be settled in regulations at a later stage.
I was rather concerned when the Minister indicated that the British Gas Corporation would be receiving profits beyond what it required and that these should ultimately and necessarily go into the Consolidated Fund for general purposes. He said that in the case of a private company the money would be returned to the shareholders. We are all shareholders in the nation. I am not suggesting that the profits beyond what the corporation requires should necessarily be paid out to everybody. However, heavy and intensive industrial gas users should receive some benefit.
If we are to have some accommodation made for bulk energy users, that will provide for the large companies. However, gas or other energy consumption is often a large proportion of the total costs of many smaller companies,

although they cannot be considered as bulk users. They are not likely to benefit from the arrangements that emerge from the NEDO conference.
I hope that the Government will ensure that all those in industry who are struggling to be competitive with enterprises in Europe and elsewhere will be accommodated. If there is another windfall from low-price gas, it is not sufficient to say that it must necessarily go into the Consolidated Fund. It can be utilised for other purposes, including those of intensive energy users both large and small and for future projects that might be of great value to the State.
I have been in favour of constituting a separate fund into which all these moneys would be pooled. It could be drawn out from time to time in suitable quantities, which would be useful for energy requirements. If that is not done, we shall find ourselves in considerable difficulties in later years.
It is conceivable that there will be a problem over the definition of gas. We have a limited definition in the Gas Act 1972. What is gas for the purpose of the Bill? Does it include ethane, propane, butane and methane, for example? Is it of a general application? Do the Minister's draftsmen advise him that it is not necessary to define it closely?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Government's proposal can be described as the high-speed stealing of money or the mugging of the lower paid and the less wealthy in our society. It is a levy that is designed to take back from the British Gas Corporation its windfall profits. Whatever the Government call it, the levy is undeniably a tax on gas consumers. The Bill is entirely in keeping with the Government's policies across the board. Those least able to pay are to be clobbered to benefit those who are already on the gravy train. It is for that reason that I support my right hon. and hon. Friends.
When I was a little lad I used to live in a village called Scotswood, just outside Newcastle. There were a number of small shops in the village. They were not what we nowadays regard as corner shops. They were more or less kitchen shops in people's houses. I worked in one such shop from 7 to 12 years of age, when, alas, slum clearance did away with my livelihood, which in those days was the princely sum of 2½p a week.
The common feature of all these shops was that they were known as tick shops. Little or no money ever passed across the counter at the time of purchase. At weekends people tended to pay a few shillings off what they owed the shopkeeper.
For as long as I can remember the gas industry has had tick customers. In my young days tick customers were known as credit customers, or those who had their gas supplied by ordinary or credit meter. In the area that I represent, and in the area in which I was born, there were many more prepayment or slot meter customers than tick customers. The tick customers were those fortunate enough to have jobs. Unfortunately, we have returned to the situation in which the number of prepayment customers is increasing steadily because of the high level of unemployment.
If a person buys a car, for example, on credit the tendency is that he will have to pay interest on the money that he borrows. That means that tick customers pay a heavy price. The contrary applies in our fuel industries.


Those who pay by a quarterly account to the gas boards pay a smaller sum than those who pay in advance for using the gas supplied through prepayment meters. That has never ceased to amaze me.
Those who use the prepayment meter, or the slot meter as it is commonly known, are those who are being penalised most heavily under the terms of the Bill. The sad feature is that those who are paying in advance for the privilege of burning a cubic foot of gas by means of a slot meter are often living in areas where unfortunately people tend to use gas meters as piggy banks. That means that those users are penalised twice. They cannot afford to obtain their gas on tick through a credit meter and they have to invest in 50p pieces in operating a slot meter. These consumers will be penalised to the greatest extent by the clause and the Bill generally.
I want to refer again to what I said on Second Reading, because the effect is different on different income groups. I said:
By 1983 the poorest households will be spending nearly 15 per cent. of their disposable income on fuel compared with only 6 per cent. for those earning £50 a week or more."—[Official Report, 16 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 90.]
There are few hon. Members who have to choose between having a meat and being warm. I repeat what I said on Second Reading, namely, that this stark choice will face many people in the coming years.
No matter how eloquently the Minister may argue that the gas levy will have nothing to do with future gas prices—and it is difficult to know how he can make this assertion—if the amendments are not accepted, we could reach a stage, depending on the state of the economy or whoever is in the Treasury at the time, where the figures of 1p, 3p and 5p are increased to 3p, :5p and 7p, or to 5p, 7p and 9p. The levy will undoubtedly affect future gas prices. Even if the figures stay as they are, we may reach a stage when the British Gas Corporation finds itself short of cash flow for heavy investment programmes at the very time when it is most likely to need it

Mr. Skeet: Perhaps it would be possible to avoid these difficulties by having fresh legislation in a few years' time to insert new rates, rather than proceeding by regulation.

Mr. Brown: That is a fair suggestion. On the other hand, in three or four years' time we may have fresh legislation in any case. That is regrettable, but it is part of our parliamentary system that no Government can be bound by the legislation of a previous Government. However, I should like this legislation to be right. We do not want to have to depend on something being brought forward in two or three years' time. I should have been happier had amendment No. 6 read: "leave out 'different from' and insert 'no higher than'". However, my hon. Friend and I are both seeking the same end.
I am sorry that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have not been called. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) has an interest in a glassworks, as I have. The managing director of the Lemington, Newcastle-upon-Tyne glassworks, Fred Goodwin, has worn a track coming backwards and forwards to see me. I have been in correspondence with the chairman of Northern Gas, Brian Clegg. He is not an unsympathetic man, and I am sure that he gets no pleasure from seeing Lemington glass having to put people on the stones time and again, 200 or 300 at a time. We have lost over 1,000 employees at the works

during the past few years. The major cause has been the cost of gas, which has been forced on Clegg, as chairman of Northern Gas.
I come back to the point that I made on Second Reading. I cannot support a proposition that seeks to use the windfall profits of British Gas simply to give a handout to all major industrial gas consumers. A major problem is that we look at our fuel industries in isolation from one another. Today we are discussing gas; last week we were discussing coal; next week it may be oil or nuclear energy. We should be talking about the fuel assets of this country and how best to deploy them. It is wrong that a major industry should burn gas when it could do the job more efficiently with coal, nuclear power or electricity. The subsidy suggested by my hon. Friend should be given to small glass manufacturing plants of the type that I mentioned, where gas has to be used for the selective heat that is requried.
The sources that we have are not finite. Even coal will eventually run out. That is all the more reason why, in a profitable industry like gas, we should use the money raised to investigate: new sources of energy. If we are to survive we must find new sources of energy. Meanwhile, we must make the most efficient use of the resources that we have.

Mr. John Wells: I wish to make a brief plea on behalf of the horticulture industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) touched on the problems of the heavy industrial user.
The horticulture industry is a special user of fuel in three respects. Our Dutch competitors are sitting on top of a gasfield and therefore get gas at minimal cost. It seems, unfair to British glasshouse growers that Dutch glasshouse users have extremely cheap gas. They feel that the prices that the Dutch enjoy are in contravention of EEC rules.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) rightly touched on the Morecambe Bay project, which is near one of the major British glasshouse centres. I understand that the Morecambe Bay project—I am no specialist in these fuel debates—is very much in the future, and therefore has to be paid for. If the levy is put at this rate, less capital will he available for new developments such as the Morecambe Bay project. Therefore, one of the key areas of the British glasshouse industry will be put in jeopardy.
I have not come to the House this afternoon to pretend that gas is the major fuel used in the glasshouse industry. I am well aware that today it provides only a small part of its energy. However, the Government should be aware that if gas could be developed near our glasshouse industry we could achieve stabilised gas prices, which would go a long way towards helping the industry.
6 pm
All the profitable and modern fuel equipment and structure of the industry has gone in with Government grants of up to one-third of the cost and in certain cases more. It is an absurd misuse of that taxpayers' money to penalise a man who has installed a gas-powered boiler if he finds the price of gas moving against him and changes to oil or, incredible as it may seem, coal. In rural districts the glasshouse industry is even installing wood-fired boilers. That is an absurd retrogression into the Middle Ages when places such as Morecambe are sitting on a vast potential reservoir of gas.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give comfort to the glasshouse industry over its need for price stability and reliable continuity. If it is possible to get a consensus among glasshouse growers that gas is good, more and more will use it. If they do not have confidence, they will not move towards gas and the uncertainty will remain. I hope that my hon. Friend can give the industry a little confidence.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I commiserate with the Opposition over the fact that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 were not selected. Had they been, I should have felt inclined to vote with the Opposition.
My constituents, too, are concerned with the glassmaking and pottery industries. Gas is a high content in their prices—14 per cent. at some ends of the pottery industry and 8 to 9 per cent. in the glass industry. In industries such as paper, the proportion is as high as 40 per cent.
The concept of the Bill is entirely wrong. It is not a question of 1p, 3p or 4p. Enormous profits will be made, which should be put to better purpose than being returned to the maw of the Treasury. Precisely the same is true in the forestry legislation, where the profits from the sale of land will go not to increasing forestry but to the Treasury. The Government are obsessed by a foolish consideration. We are faced with a major slump. The main objective of any Government should be to do some pump priming, at little cost, which will get factories working, profits up and people back into employment. I hope that the pottery industry will have a boom because of the Royal marriage, but that is a one-off occasion, and it will be a fairly shortlived boom.
The speech of the Secretary of State was to the effect that industry has to acclimatise itself to the fact that gas prices will get higher and higher. Tell that to the Marines! We know that there is a coming shortage of fuel. That is no great revelation from God. Sheikh Yamani keeps telling us that there will be less and less oil available, but why inflict on British manufacturing maximum damage in the three years that will probably be the worst of the world slump? That is what the Government are doing by putting up industrial gas prices.
I agree that the price of domestic gas should go up. I say again that we are over-subsidising domestic gas, but gas should be cheap for industry. The price of gas is still going up.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Without an ample supply of energy and heat there is no civilisation. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government's overall energy policy is topsy-turvy. The price of gas to domestic users should be cheaper. Thousands of people are suffering because they cannot afford proper heat.

Sir Hugh Fraser: One can turn a private supply of gas, electricity or coal on or off according to one's needs. Industry cannot do that. In some instances it uses energy 24 hours a day. That is why industrial prices should be kept as low as possible.
Luckily for the Government, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have not been debated. However, I hope that fairly soon the Government will accept the principle of amendment

No. 9. The financial surpluses should go to help heavy users of gas, which is the best way to help industry to get moving again. The best way to help the glass, pottery, paper and a great many other industries is to use the profits accrued by charging the high prices for precisely those sectors that the Government propose to help. I hope that that will be the Government's intention. If not, I shall come at them again and again in the House until they take some action.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It is common knowledge that I attacked the Government on the savage increase in gas prices. I did so cheerfully. The increase is appalling.
What is the money being used for? I am distressed that the House of Commons under successive Governments has approved of taxpayers' money being shovelled into nationalised industry and has neglected the private sector. As a Conservative, I support the private sector, which is where our wealth comes from. It does not come from nationalised industries.
British Gas appears to be set on a policy of crushing the private sector. We have civil engineers—the distribution people who are laying the pipes and welding while the gas is in the pipes, which is dangerous, because it cools the pipes—working with expensive plant bought up on the strength that there would be opportunities from British Gas. We shovel money into British Gas. It justifies its offshore activities. It needs money, and therefore comes to the House. Politically, we do not appear to have the will to control its activities. We should force the corporation to send out tenders and give private industry an opportunity. Private industry is being crippled. Millions of pounds of plant is standing idle and hundreds of men are dying to get on with the job of distributing more gas.
One million people were persuaded to switch to gas from oil, electricity and coal, because of the corporation's television advertising of cheap North Sea gas at the turn of a switch. Where is it? British Gas and the Government have hoodwinked the public. Cheap gas no longer exists, but we owe that gas to private industry, the 1 million people who have switched to gas, and the new users waiting to be connected. The private sector is waiting to connect industry and the public. There is still a demand to use gas because, by the skin of its teeth, it is still slightly cheaper than other forms of energy.
The Government must look after the private sector. If British Gas comes to us for additional money to support its activities, this Conservative Government jolly well have the right to support private enterprise. If we do not, we are failing as Conservatives. I did not come to the House for that. Had amendments Nos. 9 and 10 been selected, I should have voted with the Opposition. It amuses me that dozens of Conservative Members in the Lobbies, restaurants and bars said that they would support me and the Opposition when previously I went against the Government. Where were they on the night of that vote? They were not with me. I was the only person sitting on the Government Benches who abstained from voting.

Mr. Russell Kerr: They went in with the Government.

Mr. Dickens: Yes, they did. If hon. Members intend to support private enterprise, let them come to the House and be answerable.

Mr. Rost: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) has a valid point. He is reflecting the many letters that we have all received from angry constituents, who fail to understand that the era of cheap energy is over. They have been deluded by politicians who for many years have pretended that gas would be cheap and plentiful for ever more. Because British Gas—a State monopoly—and politicians have deluded the public into that concept, more and more consumers are feeling thoroughly cheated.
British Gas is the sole buyer of all available gas. It was able to screw down the available resources from the early discoveries at low prices—so low that it was not worth while to explore for more gas in the North Sea. It has now so over-exploited its market because its fuel has been half the price of any alternative fuel—and anybody who was not an idiot naturally scrapped other forms of fuel and switched to gas—that it is now having to scramble around among the Norwegian gasfields to buy gas from Norway. Indeed, 20 per cent. of our gas now comes from Norway at 10 times the price that British Gas has been prepared to pay our producers in the North Sea. That is a ridiculous position.
Meanwhile, we are still flaring gas in the North Sea. Why? Because British Gas has so held down the price, condoned by weak politicians who have been afraid to face up to reality and to face the public with that reality—

Mr. Rowlands: Nonsense.

Mr. Rost: The price has been so held down that it has not paid to invest and build a pipeline to get the gas into Britain, where it is needed. The petrochemical industry could now be thriving, instead of being beaten by overseas competition.
The Continent has always had to pay a more economic price for gas because it has been imported. Nobody was prepared to sell it at other than an economic price. State monopolies have not deliberately held down prices. The Continent has adjusted to the realistic world price for gas, just as we have all had to adjust to the realistic price for oil.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Sir Hugh Fraser rose—

Mr. Rost: I wish to finish this point. The domestic gas consumer on the Continent pays a higher price for gas than does the British domestic consumer. He does not feel cheated, because the price rise has come about gradually. On the other hand, industry on the Continent has paid a lower price than industry in Britain. That is because there has been more genuine competition in that area, and State monopolies have not been able to charge their tariffs with politicians condoning that because they have been too gutless to persuade the consumer that gas must be paid for at the marginal price at which it is produced. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser).

Sir Hugh Fraser: My hon. Friend has passed the point at: which I wished to intervene.

Mr. Rost: Having got that point off my chest, I turn to the amendments. I listened with great care and sympathy to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) when he spoke in support of his amendments. I sympathise with his point that there should be an adjustment in the tariff so that industry is not unfairly

penalised. But that can be sustained within the proposed tax levy regime. It can be, and it should be. There should be adjustments for industry without that necessarily meaning a lesser take. However, I do not accept the rather hypocritical attitude of the Opposition to gas pricing.
The Labour Government's 1978 Green Paper on energy pricing laid down plainly that windfall oil profits should be taxed, rather than prices to British consumers being artificially lowered. Unfortunately, they did not pursue that policy. They did not convince the public of the realities. Yet the Opposition, and the House, have advocated that policy to the Americans to achieve realistic world prices. The Opposition also advocated that Britain as a whole—both the economy and consumers—would benefit from taxation, rather than only the producers of the oil.
In their Green Paper on gas prices, the Labour Government advocated that gas prices:
need to be related to the expected cost of future supplies … and this implies prices higher than can be justified by the view that price increases should be limited to those made necessary by cost increases actually incurred.
If that is not a clear and precise statement by the Labour Government of the policy that this Government are now carrying through, I should like to know what is.
The only difference is that we have had the courage to face the unpopular decision to advise consumers that if gas prices are not now allowed to rise by 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. a year they will feel even angrier in two or three years' time, when gas prices will have to rise not by 25 per cent. but by 200 or 300 per cent. a year. As the early supplies from our southern gasfields begin to run out—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—we shall have increasingly to supplement them with more expensive supplies from newer fields in the North Sea, or even from Norway, at 10 times the price that the consumer is now paying for gas. Unless we give the consumer that pricing signal now, in a sensible and realistic manner, and allow the market in gas to adjust gradually over the years, we shall be criticised even more for weak leadership and for failure to face realities.
I support the Government's strategy on a gas levy. It is no more immoral for gas to make a contribution to the Exchequer than it is for oil to do so. Goodness knows where we would be today if oil revenues were not boosting the economy and helping to continue such worthwhile projects as British Steel and British Leyland. Those oil revenues are keeping us afloat. Therefore, there is nothing immoral in a contribution from gas. We must bear in mind that the levy on gas is entirely and exclusively a levy on the early North Sea gasfields—those not already paying tax. The levy is a windfall tax on the early contracts, which are unrealistically low compared with present energy prices. It is right that the State should take the benefit and redistribute it in the way that it thinks best, on behalf of the nation as a whole. Some of that money is going back in the extra benefits that the Government are giving to those least able to pay their fuel bills. That is how it should be. Rather than the benefit going exclusively to the consumers of gas, it should go to the nation as a whole to be reallocated in the most sensible way.
I oppose the amendments. They are hypocritical in that they refuse to face the realities of world energy prices. They pretend that tomorrow will never come. They will


continue to delude the consumer and the nation as a whole instead of allowing the consumer to adjust to the inevitable over the longer term.
I believe that the levy should go ahead. These wrecking amendments are unfair to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, who made a constructive contribution to the debate. They represent more the view of the Labour Party, which is not prepared to look back on what it proposed when in office. I think that it should be condemned for that. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The effect of the three amendments would be to lower the levy on the British Gas Corporation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) made clear in his admirable speech, they are wrecking amendments. The first and second of the amendments would reduce the levy from 3p and 5p a therm in 1981–82 and 1982–83 to 1p a therm in both cases. The effect of the third amendment would be to ensure that any variations which could be made in the levy under the terms of the Bill could be only in a downwards direction.
The amendments would result in a loss of revenue from the levy of £290 million in 1981–82 and £620 million in 1982–83. The BGC's post-levy profits, if the amendments were carried, would be £750 million and £1,100 million.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) repeated many of the anxieties that he expressed on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) expressed anxieties about the investment programme. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is sufficient money in the BGC, even after the levy, for the necessary investment for the increased supply of gas and the strengthening of the transmission system. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to Morecambe Bay. The initial stage of the Morecambe Bay project is in the corporate plan. All that is taken account of in the calculation of the levy. Without the levy, the BGC would accrue huge bank deposits for which it has no immediate use.
The effect of amendment No. 6, as I said, would be to reduce the flexibility that would otherwise be available to restrict variations in the levy to downward adjustments only. The purpose of subsection (2) is to allow for the possibility of varying the rate of levy each three years as specified in subsection (1).
The rates of levy in the Bill take account of the anticipated sales and financial forecasts made by the BGC. Other things being equal, we intend that the levy should be left unchanged in the initial three-year period. However, we cannot exclude the possibility of unexpected changes. Forecasts of sales might prove to be wrong. Forecasts of oil prices might also prove to be wrong. I shall be coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) about the assumptions on which the forecasts are based. Obviously, these forecasts could prove to be wrong. Therefore, it makes no sense to restrict the flexibility to alter the levy. Any order to alter the amount of levy would have to be laid in draft before the House and would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, right hon. and hon. Members would have every opportunity to discuss and investigate it thoroughly.
A large part of the debate has revolved round the question of industrial energy prices. I strongly reject the charge made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) that the Government are complacent about this matter. The Government take complaints about energy prices extremely seriously.
The Government responded quickly. They were anxious that the NEDC task force should be set up to investigate the problems of bulk and energy intensive users. The Government will obviously await the findings of that report on 4 March and will prepare a speedy response to it, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone said, this is a serious and urgent problem. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall consider it very quickly.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that the Government, in consultation with the Gas Corporation, have also taken a number of steps. We have asked the Gas Corporation to investigate ways in which relief could be given to the bulk users of gas. We have asked the corporation to consider a new type of premium contract, halfway in price between an interruptible and a firm contract, which would have certain limited periods of interruption.
In response to the situation, and after talks with the Government, the Gas Corporation has announced that the prices of new firm contracts will come down in the second and third years to the general level of renewal prices. That concession will be of substantial help to a number of firms. Some of the complaints that have been made to the Government have fallen in the specific area of those with three-year contracts linked to the price of gas-oil. They will achieve some relief.
I point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone that the Government recognise the problem that faces energy intensive and bulk users of gas. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford was right to underline that problem.
It is a problem, not only for British industry, but for industries in other countries. French industrial gas prices rose by 120 per cent. in 1979–80. German industrial gas prices have gone up by 70 per cent. The rise in gas prices following the massive rise in oil prices is sweeping across the industrialised world.
What happens in other countries may be similar to or ahead of what happens in this country in some instances. The comparisons which are often quoted are very much distorted by the movement of the pound. In the past year the pound has appreciated against the French franc by 27 per cent. and against the deutschemark by 23 per cent. Obviously, that makes the apparent comparison look much worse than it is. Even though the Gas Corporation is putting up its prices less than other utilities in Europe, it is still difficult for the Corporation when these comparisons look so different because of the movement of the exchange rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made the key point that when analysing the problem one should not forget that, in addition to bulk users, there are energy-intensive businesses which are quite small or medium users. That is a problem to which it is difficult to find a solution.
The problems facing the steel industry, for example, do not involve all high load factor users of electricity or of gas. It is difficult to find a way of helping those consumers. Although they are energy-intensive, they are


not all bulk users. The problem is to find a way for the utility to identify those people without being placed in the invidious position of having to discriminate and decide that this person should get this concession and that person should get that concession. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a formidble problem. It is one to which the Government are addressing their minds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford also asked on what assumptions the pence per therm figures for the levy were based. They are related to the corporation's assumptions, not just on sales but on oil price increases over the three-year period of the financial target. Those forecasts are broadly in line with those used by the Department. There are considerable uncertainties about the likely rates of increase. A number of different forecasts and scenarios have been made by the Department. However, that uncertainty would embrace real average annual increases, in the range of 3 to 4 per cent. per annum, in the oil price. Therefore, the expectations of the Gas Corporation and the Department are consistent.

Mr. Skeet: I shall not press my hon. Friend on what his estimates will be for oil prices, because that could be invidious. He has made his calculations on what he considers will happen in the next four five years. Will he put a ceiling on the rate increases? After all, if the prices of 1p, 3p, or 5p went up to 6p or 7p that could be severe.

Mr. Lamont: I do not think I could make that forecast. The future is so uncertain that it is difficult enough to look ahead six months, let alone six years. Many people have been proved wrong in their forecasts about energy prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to the problems of the Dutch growers. He was worried that we would not have enough investment. I hope that I have given him some assurance on that point. He rebuked me for disagreeing with him on one point. I was shaking my head merely when he referred to users of gas who found the price moving against them. I can see that this comment will be greeted with uproar, but there is a difference between the price going up and the price moving against them. Although the price of gas has risen, people who have invested in gas facilities have done well because, if they had not invested in gas the prices of the alternative fuels which they would have used would have gone up much more. That is what is so often forgetten when we talk about the disadvantage to industry of the rise in the cost of gas. More people in industry use oil than gas, and they have much heavier costs.
My hon. Friend made that point about the horticultural industry. I agree with him that the Dutch horticultural tariff is causing serious problems for our industry. That is recognised by the Government.
We have been pursuing this matter at the Council of Ministers in the EEC. Unfortunately, the death of Mr. Gundelach caused some delay in the processing of this matter, but it was raised at the Council of Agriculture Ministers yesterday. The United Kingdom, supported by Germany and Denmark, emphasised the need for early action. The Commission said that legal procedures were already under way. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not lose sight of this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) said that British Gas did not use outside contractors enough. I have corresponded with my hon.

Friend and told him that, as a result of his representations, I have had meetings with business men and trade federations who are most affected by the corporation's contracting policy. The Government believe that, whenever it is efficient and economic, the corporation should contract work outside. That is one of the points in the corporate plan which we are carefully examining. I assure my hon. Friend that I am putting pressure on the corporation. I am asking it to examine this matter closely.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil asked what would be the cost of a freeze on gas prices. He was referring both to firm and interruptible prices. There would be no cost in the financial year of 1980–81. Broadly, the figures which he quoted for later years are about right. He asked what would be the effect of any such concession on the levy. He is postulating a hypothetical situation. We must see what the NEDC report on industrial prices states, and what the response of the Government will be. They are more likely to affect the EFL and the financial target than the levy. However, I shall consider what the hon. Member has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to the appropriate rates of levy after 1982–83. No decision can be taken yet on those rates. As I emphasised, the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote upon future proposed rates of levy if the Government propose to vary them. After 1982–83 the levy will be set at a rate consistent with BGC's financial objectives.
I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised. I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Derbyshire, South-East that these are essentially wrecking amendments and that the Opposition's case is unrealistic. Uncomfortable and unpleasant though the adjustment to higher energy and higher gas prices is, it is happening in almost every country. I cannot think of a country where energy prices are not rising faster than prices in general. That is a reflection of the great pressure of demand for energy in a world of insecure supplies, which knows that energy is becoming scarcer and that it is finite. That has created the situation in which BGC makes its windfall gains. Therefore, the Government feel that they are right to present the Bill in this form. I therefore invite the Committee to reject these wrecking amendments

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 2, line 33, leave out 'different from' and insert 'lower than'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 190.

Division No. 84
6.38 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F.


Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp'tN)
Cowans, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Craigen, J. M.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, J.S.


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, R.C. (N'castleW)
Cunningham,DrJ.(W'h'n)


Brown, Ron(E'burgh,Leith)
Dalyell, Tam






Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McKelvey, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Marks, Kenneth


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Dunlop, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunn, James A.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Molyneaux, James


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Fitt, Gerard
Palmer, Arthur


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Pendry, Tom


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Ford, Ben
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Forrester, John
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Foulkes, George
Richardson, Jo


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gourlay, Harry
Rooker, J.W.


Graham, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Grant, John (IslingtonC)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Grimond, Rt HonJ.
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Sandelson, Neville


Hamilton, W.W. (C'tralFife)
Sever, John


Hardy, Peter
SiIkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)


Harrison, RtHonWalter
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Heffer, EricS.
Steel, Rt Hon David


HomeRobertson, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Homewood, William
Stott, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Huckfield, Les
Urwin, RtHon Tom


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)
Wainwright.R.(Colne V)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Watkins, David


John, Brynmor
Welsh, Michael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (EastFlint)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Willey, RtHon Frederick


Kerr, Russell
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S 'sea W)


Kilfedder, JamesA.
Williams, SirT.(W'fon, )


Lamborn, Harry
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Lamond, James
Young, David (BoltonE)


Lestor, Miss Joan



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)
Mr. George Morton and


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. James Tinn.


McCusker.H.



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Brittan, Leon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Baker, Nicholas (TV Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Bell, SirRonald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Butcher, John


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Boscawen, HonRobert
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Boyson, DrRhodes
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Braine, SirBernard
Colvin, Michael



Cormack, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Corrie, John
Mather, Carol


Costain, SirAlbert
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Cranborne, Viscount
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mellor, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Dover, Denshore
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Montgomery, Fergus


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Moore, John


Eggar, Tim
Mudd, David


Elliott, SirWilliam
Murphy, Christopher


Fairgrieve, Russell
Myles, David


Faith, MrsSheila
Needham, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Fisher, SirNigel
Neubert, Michael


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Newton, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles
Osborn, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Forman, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fox, Marcus
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Pawsey, James


Fry, Peter
Percival, Sir Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pollock, Alexander


Glyn, DrAlan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Goodlad, Alastair
Price, Sir David (Easleigh)


Gorst, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gow, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Gray, Hamish
Rathbone, Tim


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Grylls, Michael
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rhodes James, Robert


Hampson, DrKeith
Ridsdale, Julian


Hannam, John
Rossi, Hugh


Haselhurst, Alan
Rost, Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Hawksley, Warren
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hayhoe, Barney
Scott, Nicholas


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heddle, John
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'h'm)
Shersby, Michael


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Sims, Roger


Hooson, Tom
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, Rt HonD.(G'ldf'd)
Speller, Tony


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Sproat, Iain


Hurd, HonDouglas
Stainton, Keith


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Martin


Joseph, RtHonSirKeith
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Stewart, k.(ERenfrewshire)


Kershaw, Anthony
Stradling, Thomas.J.


Knight, MrsJill
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Lamont, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Lang, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Latham, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Donald


LeMarchant, Spencer
Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)


Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trippier, David


Loveridge, John
Waddington, David


Luce, Richard
Wakeham, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Walker, B. (Perth)


Macfarlane, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


MacGregor, John
Wall, Patrick


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Ward, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Watson, john


Madel, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Major, John
Wells, Bowen


Marlow, Tony
Wheeler, John


MarshallMichael(Arundel)
Whitney, Raymond






Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Peter Brooke and



Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question put,  That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 151.

Division No. 85
[6.50 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Elliott, SirWilliam


Ancrarn, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Faith, MrsSheila


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Fisher, SirNigel


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forrnan, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Peter (SouthAngus)


Boscawen, HonRobert
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, DrRhodes
Glyn, DrAlan


Braine, SirBernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)


ESruce-Gardyne, John
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Etuck, Antony
Hamilton, HonA.


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, DrKeith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Carl isle, John (LutonWest)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Clark, HonA. (Plym'th, S'n)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Doug las (Gr'th'rn)


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Corrie, John
Hooson, Tom


Costain, SirAlbert
Hordern, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Rt HonD. (G'ldf'd)


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, HonDouglas


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Knight, MrsJill


Lamont, Norman
Marshall Michael (Arundel)


Lang, Ian
Mates, Michael


Latham, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Lawrence, Ivan
Mawhinney, DrBrian


LeMarchant, Spencer
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)
Mellor, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Loveridge, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Luce, Richard
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Lyell, Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Montgomery, Fergus


MacGregor, John
Moore, John


MacKay, John(Argyll)
Mudd, David


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Murphy, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Myles, David


Madel, David
Needham, Richard


Major, John
Nelson, Anthony


Marlow, Tony
Neubert, Michael



Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Osbom, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stevens, Martin


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Page, Richard (SWHerts)
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Percival, Sirlan
Tebbit, Norman


Pollock, Alexander
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Donald


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thome, Neil(IlfordSouth)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Renton, Tim
Wakeham, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, B. (Perth)


Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, RtHonSirD.


Rossi, Hugh
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Ward, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William(Sfreatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Sproat, Iain



NOES


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan


Alton, David
Fitt, Gerard


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fletcher, Raymond(IllKeston)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Forrester, John


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Booth, Rt HonAlbert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, RonaldW. (H'ckn'yS)
Graham, Ted


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&amp;P)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, John (IslingtonC)


Canavan, Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, W.W.(C'tralFife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, EricS.


Cook, Robin F.
HomeRobertson, John


Cowans, Harry
Homewood, William


Craigen, J.M.
Hooley, Frank


Crowther, J. S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Huckfield, Les


Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)
Hugnes, Mark(Durham)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dixon, Donald
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Dunlop, John
Lamborn, Harry


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James


Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Field, Frank
McCartney, Hugh






McCusker,H.
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McElhone,Frank
Rowlands,Ted


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sandelson,Neville


McKelvey,William
Sever,John


McWilliam,John
Silkin,Rt HonJ.(Deptford)


Marks,Kenneth
Skinner,Dennis


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Soley,Clive


Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt HonBruce
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, R.C. (Sotonltchen)
Taylor, MrsAnn (Bolton W)


Molyneaux,James
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Tinn, James


Morris, RtHonJ. (Aberavon)
Urwin, RtHonTom


Morton, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright,R. (ColneV)


Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Pendry, Tom
White, FrankR.


Penhaligon, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Whitlock, William


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Williams, SirT.(W'ton)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Young, David (BoltonE)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Mr James Hamilton.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. John Hunt: I hope to be reasonably brief. I believe that this is a useful and, I hope, largely uncontroversial Bill. Many of the proposed powers within it have been sought by the London Boroughs Association and will, I believe, be of general help and benefit to Londoners.
In order not to prolong the debate unduly, I am proposing to deal in detail with only one or two specific clauses, but if hon. Members wish to raise questions or comments on other parts of the Bill, I shall endeavour, with the permission of the House, to deal with such points at the end of the debate.
Clause 3 proposes increased penalties for the carriage of dangerous goods on ferries—in particular, on the Woolwich ferry. Clearly, there is always a risk of explosion or fire in such cases, and it is important to have an adequate deterrent to such offences. The Bill proposes that the fine should be increased from £50 to £200.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the somewhat technical matter of flashpoints in flammable liquids, notably petroleum oil, and again the opportunity is taken to update the penalties for failing to comply with these provisions.
Clause 6 is, perhaps, of rather more general interest. Its aim is to achieve the more efficient enforcement of traffic and parking regulations in London. It empowers the Greater London Council to experiment with new methods of parking control. The problem with the existing conventional meters, as many hon. Members will know, is that they take only coins, that they can easily be vandalised, and that they involve councils in considerable expense and difficulty in recalibrating when charges have to be increased to reflect inflation.
The GLC is, therefore, planning to experiment with three possibilities: first, the use of tokens instead of coins; secondly, the use of magnetic cards, along the lines of cash-points at banks; and thirdly, some kind of in-vehicle display which would remove the need for meters altogether and would merely entail the motorist in punching holes in a parking card, or, perhaps, tearing off perforated tabs on the card, on his arrival at his parking space.
These are all possibilities for the future. They deserve to be tried, as the Bill proposes, on an experimental basis. I think that they could well prove particularly useful in an area such as London, where our traffic congestion is becoming progressively worse and where parking control by the meter is largely breaking down, partly because of a persistent shortage of wardens and partly because of the continual vandalism to which these meters are being subjected.
I am told that out of a total meter stock of 25,000 in London, as many as 2,500 are out of action at any one time because of vandalism. This makes it even more urgent and important to look at the alternatives which are suggested in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree with that.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that another very good reason for


dispensing with the parking meter is that a parking meter is an environmental eyesore, and that anything that we can do to get rid of such eyesores would be a very good thing?

Mr. Hunt: I entirely take that point. As my hon. Friend says, the parking meter is a very unattractive piece of street furniture—to adopt the planners' jargon. I, too, would like to see meters obliterated as soon as possible. Perhaps, as a result of the Bill, we shall be moving in that direction.
Clauses 7 and 8 deal with overcrowding in hostels. This is an issue of major importance and concern for many in Greater London. A number of our London boroughs, particularly the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster, have frequently expressed their concern about the lack of effective control over the hostels which spring up, particularly in the central areas of London, to accommodate—and, some would say, to exploit—students, young tourists and others. This part of the Bill is aimed solely and specifically at overcrowding and does not cover such matters as structural condition or fire precautions, which the GLC believes—rightly, I think—must be dealt with on a national basis.
The penalty provisions in clause 11 are designed to catch those who, by a rapid change of ownership or management, can at present evade the law. Clause 13 gives effective powers of entry to borough council inspectors, which again is essential if the present abuses are to be stopped.
In two or three months' time we shall once again be in the full tourist season, and it would be encouraging to feel that the Bill could be on the statute book by that time and thus help to reduce the overcrowding and exploitation of young people from overseas, which is not only a substantial health hazard but is, I believe, a disgrace to our capital city.
Clause 18, which I shall mention only very briefly, seeks to regulate the activities of the acupuncturists, tattooists and cosmetic piercers in our capital. With the advent of the punk rocker, it is more important than ever that ear piercing and other agonies endured by the young should be carried out as safely and as hygienically as possible. That is what this part of the Bill seeks to ensure.
Finally, I come to clause 19, which is entitled
Application of Shops Act 1950 to exhibition and conference premises.
I want to emphasise that, whatever one's views on Sunday trading may be, the impact of this clause is extremely narrow. There seems to be an overwhelming case for some relaxation of the Shops Act provisions in cases of this kind, particularly as the restrictions have already been lifted in respect of the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. So we must not allow London exhibition and conference centres to be at a disadvantage, as they are now.
I stress that only retail activity with a close and bona fide connection with an exhibition, trade and fair or conference is covered by the clause. That seems to be an entirely sensible and unexceptionable provision. I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that the Bill contains a number of modest and worthwhile reforms that cover quite a large area of London life. I hope that the House will support the Bill and I commend this stage of its passage to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should let the House know that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) on his presentation of the Bill. It is a hangover from a long time ago. Originally, we had a long discussion about it, but now we have almost forgotten it. I thought that the Bill contained other provisions. However, I made a mistake and I realise that those provisions are contained in the Bill to come. I am doing my best to prevent that Bill from being taken formally.
I have a few observations to make. I am particularly concerned about part III, clause 6(4)(b). The provision deals with parking meters. Under clause 6(4)(b) it will be an offence for someone to fail to display—
a parking device otherwise than in the manner prescribed.
That provision will create hazards. One can imagine the sort of punch-ups that will occur if a pernickety but authorised person goes round checking whether a device is displayed in the exact position required. As a result of an error of judgment or a moment's thoughtlessness a person may be subjected to heavy penalties, as described in the Bill. In reality he may have made an inoffensive mistake.
The provision is mandatory but draconian. It cannot be argued that such behaviour should be treated in that way. A person who fails to position a device in his car in the manner prescribed by the law will be subjected to penalties. One can imagine a housewife, or harassed mother who has children in the car. The children may move the device. There are many reasons why the device might not be in the prescribed place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify the powers contained in that provision. What does the mean when it says that a persons will be penalised if he fails to display a parking deviceotherwise than in the manner prescribed"?
What evidence would have to be produced? What negotiations could take place? Could a reasonable excuse be given, or would a person have to go to court?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Clause 6(4) (b) cannot be understood without reference to the beginning of subsection (4), which states:
A person who, with intent to defraud—

Mr. Brown: That is why I am asking for clarification. Subsection (3)(c) states:
Subsections (6) and (8) of the said section 42 shall apply to an offence under subsection (4) of this section as they apply to offences under the said section 42.
The Bill then goes on to refer to the intent to defraud. I am not sure whether the failure to place a device in one's car can be determined to be an attempt to defraud. A harassed housewife might have forgotten to place the device in the right place How can she prove to everyone's satisfaction that she did not have any intent to defraud? Will she have to go to court to prove it?
One can imagine that those who make genuine mistakes might well feel harassed. If there is no appeal, a person will have to go through all the panoply of the law to prove that he or she genuinely made a mistake and had no intent to defraud. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take advice and let me know whether—as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said—the provision relates only to a deliberate attempt to defraud. How is one to distinguish between a deliberate attempt to defraud and an error of judgment?
Part IV, clause 7, refers to hostels. I am concerned because the definition contained in the clause is limited. It is certainly not precise enough. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Ravensbourne suggested that the provision was limited to certain things and certain places. I accept that the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea wish to use the clause in order to control the problems that the hon. Gentleman elaborated. He referred to holiday makers and to students that are being fleeced.
I may not have similar problems in my constituency, but overcrowding does exist. As defined in the Bill, "hostel" means the same as a common lodging house, hotel or bed and breakfast place such as councils and the DHSS use. Such places are overcrowded. Rows are still going on about the conditions of some of the hotels that are used. The definition of "hostel" contained in the Bill does not describe anything other than a common lodging house or hotel. I hope that it will be possible to ensure that the Bill means a common lodging house. The House will recall a fire in my constituency in which many people were killed. The building was overcrowded and people lost their lives unnecessarily. The authorities did not even know who had been in the building. It was the type of common lodging house known as a doss house. As a result, those letting the rooms did not know who was there.

Mr. Ted Graham: I wonder if my hon. Friend has noticed that the legislation fails to call for any registration procedure. In effect, it empowers local authority officers to enter a building when they believe that matters inside the dwelling are not in order. As a result, it means that a suspect dwelling will not be registered. Therefore, many of these buildings will continue to prevail.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I was about to say that if dwellings are not registered, excuses and denials are heard. That sort of thing happens daily in our constituencies. One does not need a crystal ball to foresee what will happen. In my area, the public health department has to rely on section 90 of the 1961 Act. That is insufficient. I hope that clause 7 will give chief environmental health officers an opportunity to take action. Given the way that the hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill, I fear that the provision will cover only those on holiday in certain parts of London, who are being fleeced and shoved into rooms by the dozen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify that point.
I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's belief that, as the GLC has decided that it is not right and proper to involve itself with fire precautions, it should be a national matter. That is difficult to follow, because the GLC is responsible for London's fire brigade. The GLC is responsible if there is any danger that the fire brigade will not be able to take effective action. If it is thought that there should be a national fire brigade, the Government should be contacted and they should take the necessary steps. It is unsatisfactory to say that we shall take such steps as possible to stop overcrowding, when an authorised officer who goes into a dwelling to stop overcrowding will come out knowing that the conditions contravene the fire regulations. I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Ravensbourne when he says that the GLC is not responsible for that. There have been many fires in

London's hostels and that alone means that the GLC should be responsible. It cannot abdicate its responsibility by saying that it is a national issue and does not specifically relate to London.
I should like to know whether clause 7 will apply to certain properties in my constituency belonging to the GLC. They have been lying idle, month in and month out, year in and year out. They were run-down properties. They were awaiting sale and there were no buyers. Two or three years ago they were handed over to all sorts of peculiar people for all sorts of peculiar purposes. I have had constant hassle concerning the itinerants who were resting in these places and causing trouble with all the people in the surrounding properties. People were being awakened night after night by parties, drunkenness, and problems related to drug taking. This was in Lansdowne Drive in my constituency. I have raised the matter in the House on several occasions.
My question, therefore, is whether clause 7 will apply to those places. As I have already indicated, the properties are owned by the GLC and they have been made available to some doss-housing groups. The GLC has lost control of them and there is no way in which I can get the GLC to do anything about it.
Two weeks ago, after a great deal of hassle, we have been able to do something by making an early morning raid on the properties, with the assistance of the London Electricity Board, the gas board and other bodies. We have been able to get at the properties while the dossers were out, cutting off the gas and electricity, and blocking them out. But that is a most unsatisfactory way in which to have to tackle a problem of this sort. As this legislation is now being introduced, I should like to know whether Hackney borough council will be in a position to take action in such cases, even though the properties are owned by the GLC.
Clause 15 deals with the various exemptions. I object to some of them. For example, paragraph (a) refers to premises
used or managed by the Crown, by the Common Council of the City of London or by an authority or body established by or under any enactment or operating under Royal Charter".
Some of those bodies are not above becoming involved in the kinds of problems that I have mentioned, where properties are used as doss houses. As freeholders, they have in many cases handed over their property to others, and I do not think that they should be exempted.
I draw attention to paragraph (m):
occupied, used or managed, for the purposes specified in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, by a voluntary organisation which is in receipt of contributions from the Secretary of State under the said paragraph 4".
I see no reason for that exemption, because that is exactly the type of case that I am complaining about.
Many bed and breakfast places and hotels used by the DHSS are in an appalling state, and there is continual complaint about them in London, and certainly in Hackney, where the authorities, because of the numbers of homeless families, are involved in an outrageous situation. It is not right, therefore, that such an exemption should be included in the Bill.
The question as to who owns or is running a property is of no consequence. The only relevant question is whether the people concerned are subject to the law. The fact that the DHSS is paying for the accommodation does not entitle people to use the property in the manner of a doss house.

Mr. Graham: Will my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather sad if the GLC and the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) were to be more concerned with people who use these dwellings in the summer as hostels, when they are visiting the country for a week or a month, than with the welfare of the people who have lived here all their lives?

Mr, Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I ask the hon. Member for Ravensbourne to look at the exemptions to which I have drawn attention and to obtain instructions from the promoters as to whether the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will cover some of the conditions that I have described. My present impression, however, is that the inclusion of the exemption clause means that the Bill will not apply in the cases that I have mentioned.
In dealing with clause 16, I do not want to join in any argument about the fines to be imposed for improper street trading, but I ask the House to bear in mind that that offence is not always what it seems to be. The City of Westminster is a very attractive place for street traders. A Mr. Yousef, who seems to like to live in my area—no doubt because it is a desirable and attractive working class area—likes to operate in the City of Westminster as an itinerant trader. He sells various commodities and there is no suggestion that they are not worth what he is charging for them. The problem is that the City of Westminster is hounding the life out of him because he does not possess a trader's licence.
Mr. Yousef, who is a charming man, has been under the care of various hospitals for many years. His problem is mat he is continually being taken to court and fined. He is trying to do an honest day's work, but he is continually appearing before the courts. The magistrates' advice to him was "Go and see Ronald Brown"—the Hackney one. That is what Mr. Yousef did. I went into the problem with him. I then went to see Westminster city council, whose people were most kind and agreeable. The chief executive wrote to me and said that he would have the matter looked into but that the council did not have a free licence in the area in which my constituent wished to trade.
I had further discussions with the council representatives, pointing out that there were special circumstances, and I asked them to consider it as an unusual case. I received a letter from the council stating that it could not be considered as a special case. I explained the position to Mr. Yousef. He told me the nature of his business. He assured me that he was not fleecing visitors or anything of that sort and was in fact contributing to the culture and the colourfulness of the City of Westminster.
I then received a letter from Mr. Yousef's medical consultant, urging me to look into the matter, as Mr. Yousef had been to court again. The consultant assured me that medically it would be greatly to Mr. Yousef's advantage if he could be granted a licence, as he has to work outside because of the nature of his complaint. The consultant felt that if Mr. Yousef could be enabled to carry on the work that he had been doing for several years, but without being harassed in the courts, with threats of imprisonment, it would be of advantage to his health.
I therefore returned to the chief executive of Westminster city council and sent him the recommendation of the consultant. He said that he would look into the matter again for me. He later informed me that his officer of street trading felt that the council had to reaffirm its previous decision, as there was no licence available for

Mr. Yousef, and that it was just too bad. I recognise that there has to be some sort of control, but Mr. Yousef is being harrassed.
I notice that on page 20 there is reference to the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1947, section 29, which deals with the offence of
Street trading without a licence".
It is in accordance with that provision that Mr. Yousef is being charged. The fines are set out:
£50 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.
Mr. Yousef is being clobbered time and time again. This is an ordinary chap trying as a Londoner to do his work.
Clause 16 reads quite inoffensively. It is a few lines that sound right. It says "not exceeding £200", but for that offence the fine is already £200. Therefore, the Bill does not change the situation.
Is it possible for authorities such as the City of Westminster, which is claiming that it requires these powers for more harassment through the higher rate of fines, to take into account cases such as that of my constituent Mr. Yousef?
Clause 17(1 )(d) comes out of the ark. It says:
a street forming part of the route of a stage carriage".
Although we have Hackney carriages in Hackney, we do not have stage coaches and postilions. No doubt the City of Westminster or Camden have them. Will the Minister tell me what that means?
Clause 17 is a major step forward. It gives authority to the courts to order, where such powers are applied for by a borough council, that the council is able to block off a road. The reason a road may be stopped is not for transportation purposes but to prevent dumping. That is an interesting development. I wish it had existed years ago because my area and other areas in London are subject to considerable dumping which is impossible to deal with. If that power had existed, life would have been made more tolerable for some of my constituents instead of their having to suffer that dumping.
I do not understand the wording of subsection (1)(d). What is that road? Who is in charge of such a road? The subsection says
a street forming part of the route of a stage carriage or express carriage service".
Where is that in London? Is there one in Hackney or Hackney, South? Will the Minister identify it for me so that I know whether I am right in supporting the fact that that road or street should be exempted. That is an important element and one should be careful about leaving it out. The chances of having an amendment inserted, if the Bill is enacted, would be remote. Before we agree to leave it out I should like clarification.
The last question I have on the clause is whether it is capable of taking care of the itinerants. My problem is not only rubbish but the caravans and itinerants who park on such roads. In my area they cannot be removed and hold up traffic, there is continual harassment and months pass by before they can be moved. One does not solve the problem but moves it to some other area such as Camden, Islington or Tower Hamlets. I wonder how far the provisions in clause 17 will enable one to solve that problem because even if the road is closed, and cut off, these people pull down the barriers, move on to the site and make life hell for everyone in the surrounding area. I wonder whether the proposals will enable that sort of problem to be contained.
I hope that the House will forgive me for having raised these problems, but they are relevant to my constituency. I hope that the Minister will advise me.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I hope that he will excuse me if I do not take up the various points that he has raised except to join with him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) on the concise and clear way in which he has introduced the Bill. I note that the Bill has been carefully considered and approved in Committee. I have no intention of commenting on every part of it, but I shall steer a reasonable course between the Woolwich free ferry and the flashpoints of petroleum and other flammable liquids and the ambidextrous manipulations of acupuncturists, tattooists and others.
I shall preface my remarks by saying that I have a conservative, cautious outlook when examining Bills of this sort. The first question I ask myself is: why does any council need special legislation? If it does need such legislation, should not such legislation be uniform throughout the United Kingdom? Therefore, should it not be contained in a Government Bill containing general powers? However, two exceptions can be made for Greater London. First, we may need special legislation in the Metropolis which is not relevant in other parts of the kingdom simply because an eighth of our total population lives in this great city which occupies less than 1 per cent. of the total land mass of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the pressures on living and on land are much more acute. Secondly, it is not jingoistic to observe that the councils of our Metropolis should be the trendsetters, or perhaps the trial areas, for legislative experiments to improve safety, health and other environmental standards.
I want to refer specifically to part III and to clause 6. That will afford the Greater London Council the power to consider alternatives to receiving revenue for on-street car parking by means of parking meters. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Transport I have his permission to make these comments on parking meters. He has asked me to point out to the House that these are my personal views. Parking meters are environmental disasters. They have brought ugliness to the pleasant squares of many of our townscapes. They obstruct pedestrians. They invite, if they do not incite, vandalism. My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne mentioned that. They represent a wasteful means of parking vehicles economically, as a parking bay must be designed to accommodate the largest car, and they are relatively expensive to provide,
There is no need for any such equipment on the highway which, as I have suggested, is an eyesore. The revenue for on-street parking should be gathered by means of selling the required identifiable discs, stamps or tickets for the windscreens of cars, procured from a machine or bought in bulk in advance.
I hope that, if the Bill is enacted, the GLC will introduce such schemes quickly and replace every parking meter fouling every pavement in the Metropolis. When that has been done I hope that another Bill will be introduced to eliminate the absurd need to pour millions

of gallons of yellow paint on our roads to indicate parking restrictions. I readily accept that that campaign must wait for another day.
I briefly mention another part of the Bill, part VI, clause 19, seeking amendments to the Shops Act 1950 in relation to exhibitions and conference premises—also specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I do not want unnecessarily to invite the wrath of the Lord's Day Observance Society lobby, but there are quite ridiculous anomalies about Sunday trading. While I hold that those should be tackled through a Private Member's Bill, I feel that there is a case for seeking amendments to rationalise the situation where they refer to special areas.
Clause 19 covers such special areas as conference premises and exhibition halls. Schedule 3 identifies seven locations, including Alexandra Palace. Although none of the seven is in my constituency, I think that there is some urgency about the matter. We want our exhibition halls and conference premises to be on an equal footing with the National Exhibition Centre just outside Birmingham, which is already covered by the West Midlands County Council Act 1980.
I come finally to two minor points. The Bill updates many fees and fines. I have no objection to that. Alas, with the modern disease of inflation, whatever fees or fines are fixed in legislation rapidly become out of date. It seems to me absurd that organisations—or, indeed, the Government—must return to the House to seek special powers to update fees and fines from time to time. I realise that it cannot be done in this Bill, but we should devise a more rational system, whereby a Minister can update fees and fines every four or five years, say, though not increase them beyond the inflation rate.
I said earlier that as PPS to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport I had to be careful what I said. Perhaps I should ask the authors of the Bill to recognise that, since the Bill was presented, my right hon. Friend's office has been upgraded. I humbly suggest that the Bill will have to be amended in a number of places, at least technically, in order to put my right hon. Friend's new status in the correct form.
I welcome the Bill, and very much hope that it will become an Act soon.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): It may be helpful if I intervene. I apologise for making a major speech at this stage.
The Government find the Bill acceptable in principle, and hope that it will proceed through the House.

Mr. Ted Graham: As the book says, "Follow that!" I shall do my best.
We have before us a number of useful amendments to current legislation and regulations that affect every hon. Member present who represents a London constituency. Some people might describe those amendments as comparatively minor, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) pointed out, when we examine the practical import of what appears to be minor legislation and bring it down to streets, hostels, houses and the safety of people, we see that it has significant consequences.
I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) opened the debate. There is no


partisan aspect to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman recognised that hon. Members—certainly all Greater London Members—are entitled to feel satisfied that the right questions have been asked and that within the limits of his ability in the circumstances—he will appreciate what I mean—he has given direct answers to direct questions. We are entitled to see whether we can be helpful to all our constituents in the process.
Many hon. Members have said that it is not their intention to deal in detail with all the matters covered by the Bill, which include the flashpoints of oil and car parking. I shall return to the latter, because it can be regarded as a minor, interesting innovation but possibly one with significant effects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch rightly raised serious points about the clauses dealing with the control of hostels. I hope that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne will be able to tell us why there is to be no registration of the premises affected. As well as the Bill, we have an explanatory statement from the Greater London Council, which says starkly:
The powers sought will not require the registration or licensing of premises, but will empower borough councils to take prompt action, when they find overcrowding actually exists".
Sadly, overcrowding might be found to exist after a tragedy that might have been avoided if the premises had been registered, if the owner's intention were known, and if officers had visited the premises and said that there was a limit to the number of beds or the number of people that could be accommodated in certain rooms, or collections of rooms, or on certain floors.
Many owners of such buildings may genuinely not want deliberately to have overcrowding. They may think that the premises are safe and that their provision is adequate, but the promoters may have failed to secure the maximum safety for the people who use the premises, and for our communities, by not insisting upon a simple registration procedure. We may be told that the procedure would not be so simple—that additional staff, bureaucracy, finance and so on would be needed. If such excuses are trotted out in the aftermath of a tragedy in which people have died, I know who will be running for cover. They will be saying "If only we had known that all that was required was a simple registration procedure …"
Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say something about the promoters' willingness to contemplate introducing a means whereby it will not be necessary to wait until, in the passage of time, one overworked officer gets round to buildings that he suspects may be used as hostels and then tries to get in to enforce the law.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: In my constituency a group called "Bow-Wow Autos" has taken over a piece of British Rail land and has brought in a large number of caravans. It is causing overcrowding. The local authority is trying to take High Court action but is being frustrated. I wonder whether the word "premises" in clause 7 covers this case.

Mr. Graham: It is a question of where the caravans are resting. I understand from my hon. Friend that they are in Hackney. There is a need for clarification with regard to caravans, and for a precise understanding of the terms. I am not familiar with the position, but the hon. Member for Ravensbourne may tell me whether the legislation contains a definition of what are understood to be

"premises". As legislators, we are under an obligation to be as precise as possible.
The Bill contains clauses to do with street traders, the stopping up of streets, acupuncturists and the Shops Act. I spent the whole of last Friday in the House seeking, successfully, to ensure that the Bill concerning Sunday trading did not make progress. I see nothing wrong with the provisions of clause 19, because it tidies up the law and gets rid of anomalies, not least the anomaly that it is possible to do in Birmingham something that it is not possible to do in London. If we want simply to put on our Greater London hats tonight, that is right. It is also right where it is possible to keep trading activities within the confines of an exhibition building no offence will be caused to the interests which I sought to represent here last Friday and which I seek to represent elsewhere.
I want particularly to deal with the question of car parking. The document from the GLC says that the changes are being sought
with the objective of more efficient enforcement of traffic and parking regulation in London".
There cannot be an hon. Member who would not subscribe to that objective. It must include fines and penalties, alternative forms of parking to street parking, and enforcement of or, in many instances, sadly, the inability to enforce, existing regulations. The legislation lists alternative parking devices. The definition says that it means a card, a disc, a token, a meter, a permit, a stamp, or a similar device. I am prepared to welcome an experiment designed to secure those objectives. I support the views of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that London should give a lead—I believe "proving ground" is the term—for deciding such a change.
I am not certain whether the inability to alter any change in a period under five years is wise. A minimum period of five years for an experiment seems a long time. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in his description of parking meters as environmental disasters. They may be described sometimes as an eyesore. Our streets may be cluttered more in 1981 than ever before with what can be called extraneous street furniture. The parking meter has to be seen strictly from the point of view of the purpose that it serves. There is no doubt that it has served a valuable purpose.
In this debate we are examining the efficiency of the manner in which we collect parking charges and also the manner in which we dole out penalties for people who do not pay the parking charges. Hon. Members should be aware that a great deal of profit can be, and is, being made through the operation of car parking. I should like to know whether the promoters feel that in a Bill designed to avoid the recalibration of the machines and the replacement of machines, in the light of a need to take account of inflation, there is a need to cane the motorist even more than he is being caned now.
Last year, the city of Westminster made a profit of £7,571,000 from the operation of its parking systems. It has 10,000 meters. It is the biggest operator of this kind of device in the country, although, obviously, not in the world. There are bigger users. However, this is a means by which £7·5 million, sorely needed by Westminster and, indeed, many authorities, is obtained. Last year Kensington and Chelsea, without any need for a change, made a profit of £2,687,000. Camden made a profit of £591,000; Croydon, £268,000; and the City of London,


£930,000. I should like the hon. Member for Ravensbourne to justify not merely innovation—not merely change for the sake of change—but, in the light of the cost of meters, enforcement and the payment of wardens, the fact that the present system manages to produce for Westminster a profit of £7·5 million.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that when I tried to get parking restrictions imposed in the Hackney and Shoreditch end of my constituency, where the streets are completely flooded by people coming into the area, those facilities were refused because the City of London does not want these people? The free parkers make our life a misery in Hackney because of the controls in the City of London and the City of Westminster.

Mr. Graham: I can well imagine that what my hon. Friend says is one of the sad consequences. Regrettably, no matter how easy parking is made, the question of cost arises. In the City of Westminster there is now talk of a charge of 60p an hour. That is prohibitive. It is no wonder that people wishing to park in areas where such charges are made will look for alternative places. This applies not only in inner London but in outer London.
The matter that we are discussing is not merely concerned with off-street parking, or solely with the responsibilities of local authorities. We need to examine the activities of some of the large private car parking organisations, such as National Car Parks, which made a trading profit in 1979 of £3·5 million and in 1980 of £4·5 million. It projects a 1981 profit of £6 million from car parking, not only in London. Every hon. Member knows the nature of its operation, which is undoubtedly efficient and profitable.
We need to know from the hon. Member for Ravensbourne whether the GLC is intent on solving, or attempting to solve, the car parking problem, or whether it is concerned simply with raising money. That itself is a laudable objective as costs go up. In the enforcement of the operation of parking meters, one relies on the police or traffic wardens—an arm of the police—to make sure that those who transgress are brought to book. In the Metropolitan area in 1978 there were 1,342 traffic wardens. In 1979, the figure had dropped to 1,099. Over the period, the number of traffic tickets issued by the police and traffic wardens, mostly by wardens, was 1,958,000—a colossal number.
The wardens are well stretched and well used. Considering the productivity and efficiency of use of traffic wardens, why is it not possible for the Metropolitan Police to increase the number of traffic wardens for the policing of the system with which clause 6 is partly concerned. My aggravation is shown by the report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 1980. In respect of traffic wardens, the commissioner said:
The service is now less than half the strength necessary to meet current commitments. The GLC and the London Boroughs Association helped by not imposing additional enforcement uses upon us. But by the end of the year, many boroughs were expressing concern about the failure to enforce existing restrictions in their areas.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ravensbourne holds out any hope that even with a change in the system there is any likelihood of catching more people despite the fact that 2 million were fined last year. The hon.

Gentleman would surely agree that more traffic wardens are needed. The commissioner went on to say that if the traffic warden manpower continued to deteriorate, or if it simply did not improve from its present level, there could be very real danger in view of the growth in the volume of traffic conditions, of the metropolis grinding to a halt.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne and the GLC are mindful of the fact that, even though in this tiny piece of legislation they intend to improve one of the means of controlling the efficiency of our car parking system, there are other ways in which their good work may be negatived.
I shall illustrate another of the irritations that are suffered by London Members. We need to have not only the legislation of the GLC but the collaboration of the police, and the support of the local authority and British Rail.
I use Bush Hill Park station whenever I use the train service to London. About five years ago British Rail created a purpose-built car park for not only commuters but the rest of the community. The car park has been ready for four years, but it is still not being used for its original purpose. That is due to a failure on the part of the GLC, the police and the London borough of Enfield to make the necessary arrangements to enable the yellow lines to be drawn, residents' permission to be secured, and the charges to be fixed. That would make it worth while for British Rail, the London borough of Enfield and the police to operate the car park. At present it is technically a car park for commuters. However, it is not being used by commuters, because the charges are so high. The fact is that it is not being used to good effect.
I believe that the GLC has performed a useful task in bringing together a number of valuable minor ameliorations to issues that must have caused offence to the constituents of London Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne will be able to give us some assurances in response to the issues that have been raised.

Mr. John Page: I was hoping to intervene for about two minutes in the debate. However, I have been so disturbed by the oratory of my hon. Friends and Labour Members that my contribution may extend to three minutes. It is always a pleasure to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), especially now that he speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, he having ended the Trappist silence to which he was accustomed.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like myself, have been thrilled by the news that Westminster makes £7 million a year from parking meters, that sum going to relieving the rates bill of those who live and pay rates in Westminster, the said sum of £7 million being paid by those from outside the area. It comforts me to think that traffic wardens generally are as alert as those who patrol in Tufton Street, where, having arrived home at four o'clock the other morning, I found a £6 parking ticket on my car at 10 minutes to nine o'clock. I had always thought that there was half an hour's grace. I do not recommend an increase in the number of traffic wardens. I think that they are probably doing just about enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) introduced an amazing piece of philosophy that he put under the umbrella of Conservatism. He said "I am a Conservative and I think that we should have complete


uniformity in byelaws throughout the boroughs of Greater London." I was under the impression that my hon. Friend was arguing that that uniformity should extend throughout the country.

Mr. Chapman: Mr. Chapman indicated dissent—

Mr. Page: I have stated the gloss that I put on his remarks.

Mr. Chapman: I do not think I said that. I did not intend to say that. I said that as a Conservative I am wary of passing any legislation that operates in only one part of the country. If there is a need for legislation, I start with the premise that that need should extend throughout the United Kingdom. That is the context in which I made the remark.

Mr. Page: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and I do not think that I have him too far wrong. I do not like Government byelaws very much, but if there have to be some, let them be different. It is important that the attractions and excitement of the byelaws that apply in Petticoat Lane should be different from the byelaws that operate in the lazy charm of Pinner in my constituency. Those of us who have been to Strasbourg are used to that sort of thing—vive la difference!
I have been overtaken because I was going to ask my hon. friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), in his highly influential position in presenting this Bill and other Bills with dignity and elegance, to use his influence with the local authority and the Metropolitan Police to ensure that residents have half an hour's grace when they rise in the mornings.
I turn to clause 17, which deals with constraints. It is a useful and small addition to the convenience of the public. There have been incidents in Harrow and elsewhere where it has taken six or eight months under the old procedure to get a street stopped up in the event of complicated building or construction works. The new measures are sensible and useful. They will be appreciated by not only the inner London boroughs but the outer London boroughs.
Clause 18 deals with acupuncturists, tattooists and cosmetic piercers. Subsection (1) provides that from an appointed day any borough shall be able to cause a chap who is not registered to cease to continue his practice. Will my hon. Friend give us some idea of how much notice he will expect to be given in a local newspaper or by some other local publicity of the necessity of registration? I agree with the subsection, which seems to be wise.
I must declare an interest. You might be unaware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while I was in China some 18 months ago I bought a do-it-yourself acupuncture kit. It is a useful piece of equipment that includes a plastic ear with many numbers placed on it. The pin is put into a certain place in the hope of curing the particular ailment that is afflicting one. The kit has caused a great deal of extra profit to be derived from the laundry services that are undertaken on behalf of my family. I know from personal experience of the difficulties of operating acupuncture efficiently and I am aware that registration is needed.
Finally, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a notice that appeared in a window in my constituency that referred to the desire to give a real service in the public interest. The notice on the jeweller's shop read "Ears pierced while you wait."

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am never sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether one should declare an interest. I am glad that we did not have to hear too much of the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) in tattooing and cosmetic piercing.
I do not know whether the powers to stop up roads will be sufficient for the London borough of Brent and the GLC in dealing with the rubbish dump on Glenlea Road on the site of the proposed Eltham relief road. I suspect that they will not. The difficulty facing local residents is that the roads are not just being turned into rubbish dumps but are being used for car-breaking purposes—not only the roads, but the activity is spreading on to the pavements and gardens of the houses that have been vacated so that the relief road can be built. I hope that the GLC and the London borough of Greenwich will consider whether under this Bill or any other legislation they can more effectively stamp out that kind of disturbance.
The second issue that I want to raise concerns car parking. I hope that the devices defined in the Bill and the freedom it gives will be used as an encouragement to public authorities, both boroughs and nationalised industries, to make it more possible for more pople to park in more places. Clearly, in areas such as the centre of London, traffic has to be controlled. But if one views from the air the areas around Eltham High Street in my constituency, it is perfectly plain that apart from the car parking behind Marks and Spencers which is useful and valuable, there is an equivalent site owned by Segas just off the high street that is totally empty on Saturday mornings. I hope that some of the devices mentioned in the Bill and the flexibility that it allows will encourage Segas and the local authority to see whether it is possible for people to park in a car park that is owned by us all—a nationalised industry—and make it possible for fewer people to park where there are no meters and where parking causes great confusion in North Park and the other

Mr. Graham: I am sure that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) is trying to be helpful. He seems to be saying that wherever there is a spare space that is owned by private or public enterprise, some means should be found to encourage—if not coerce—private or public empty spaces to be used for car parking.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I go further. When the extra parking facilities that are being provided in new purpose-built shopping centres, as in the outer London boroughs beyond Eltham, come on stream in a few years' time, the use of the parking devices in the Bill and the parking facilities that I mentioned on the Segas site will be even more important if businesses, rates and employment are to be maintained in my constituency.
The powers given in the Bill and in similar Bills put an extra load on local authorities. I hope that nothing in the Bill will put such a load on the London borough of Greenwich as to prevent it from doing what it should have organised already, namely, the sale of council homes to tenants who want to buy them. At the moment the borough is saying that it does not have enough staff, and that may be the reason. But I fear that there are some people who would use any opportunity to frustrate the right of tenants to buy. I hope that tenants will be enabled to buy as soon as possible.

Mr. John Hunt: I shall reply briefly to this useful debate. I am glad that the Bill has received a general welcome from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) described it as a minor amelioration. I suggest that its benefits are likely to be more substantial than that. At least it has had a fair wind from all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) was concerned about the fate of those who failed to display the kind of device that is proposed in the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) dealt quite effectively with that point during his intervention, when he said that before prosecution there has to be an intent to defraud. In the case of the harassed and flustered housewife that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I think it is unlikely that any police officer or warden would seek to take further action in the case of someone who clearly had failed to display the device for good reasons and had no intention to defraud. I am sure that any regulations would be operated flexibly and sensibly. I repeat that the proposals are in the nature of experiments.

Mr. Graham: That is an interesting point. I assume that most traffic wardens take action in complete ignorance of the owner or of the circumstances of the owner, who is obviously not present. If a traffic warden has a duty in cases where a car does not display the appropriate disc or device, inadvertently, due to harassment or neglect, not fraud, surely he will simply log the car. Subsequently, explanations will have to be given in court or in an office, and the traffic warden will have to act as some kind of Pontius Pilate.

Mr. Hunt: It will be more a case of explanations given in an office, than in a court. In the case of the housewife who was used in the illustration, I hope that there would be no possibility of prosecution. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will be administered flexibly and sensibly, and I do not foresee the kind of difficulty that has been mentioned.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should point out that the difficulty exists now. I know of a disabled person who parked a car in a place where it should not have been parked, and it is alleged that the traffic warden did not see the disc. My constituent claims that the warden was shown the disc. The police and I have spent hours discussing the case. My constituent now has to get a photocopy of the disc that he alleges was on show at the time, and the commissioner will have to consider the matter. So it does happen. The more this type of regulation is widened, the more difficult it becomes, particularly when it involves a mere piece of paper. There is no discussion. The person is fined there and then, and there is an immediate fixed penalty fine.

Mr. Hunt: Again, I think that one would have to show an intention to defraud. I repeat that we are dealing with experiments. If the disc system produced many cases of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I imagine that it would not be continued. It would be unpopular, and it would be impossible for any authority that was proposing such a scheme to carry the public with it. But let us consider whether the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman envisages do arise.
Hostels featured quite prominently in the debate. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said that the definition of "hostel" was not wide enough. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for Edmonton. They were particularly concerned about the lack of provision for registration in the Bill. Two years ago, the GLC promoted wider provisions on behalf of the London boroughs requiring registration of premises. Those provisions had to be withdrawn because of strong opposition from the Department of the Environment and other Departments. That is why the proposal in the Bill is more limited in scope. It should be seen merely as a first step, but at least it is one in the right direction.

Mr. Graham: As a Minister from the Department of the Environment is present, perhaps he would care to tell us why the Department feels that registration is not in the best interests of our constituents. The hon. Gentleman was careful to say that the earlier provisions were withdrawn as a result of strong representations from the Department. If Members of the House and authorities believe that registration would be suitable it is surely only right, proper, courteous and timely for the Minister to tell us the reasons.

Mr. Hunt: The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps will write to him in due course.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch also referred to street trading. He told us the sad story of his constituent Mr. Yousef, who had apparently been harassed because of his street trading activities. The fines proposed in the Bill are merely an updating of the existing fines, and in present circumstances that must be considered reasonable. In spite of his commendable concern for his constituent, I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate the resentment that street trading causes to established traders in premises where they have to pay increasingly heavy rates to sustain their business. On that basis alone, it is right to deter as far as possible such street trading. If Mr. Yousef is being harassed in the way that he says, the best solution is for him to take a lock-up shop of his own.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to clause 17, which deals with stopping up roads, and to the admittedly archaic wording of the section that deals with
stage carriage or express carriage".
I imagine that the phrase is carried forward from one piece of legislation to another. I can tell the House that a stage carriage is a red bus and an express carriage a green bus.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I now understand why I cannot get a No. 277 bus in Hackney. It is running like a stage coach—only once a day.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman also asked whether street closures would affect itinerant people and caravans. I understand that a caravan is a vehicle and therefore would be affected. I gather that if itinerant people were in the road before it was stopped up it would be difficult to remove them, but after the stopping up they would not be able to enter. We have at least met the hon. Gentleman half way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) spoke eloquently. I thank him for his general welcome to the Bill. Many of us support him in his campaign against parking meters. We are trying to make a start in that direction in this legislation.
The hon. Member for Edmonton also referred to car parking and parking meters and in particular to the apparently large profits that the city of Westminster and other local authorities are making as a result of meter charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) dealt appropriately with that point. It is important to remember that the charges are not levied to make money. That is an incidental effect. The main purpose is to discourage prolonged parking and to prevent congestion, which is a problem for the emergency services and others in central London. I understand that the rule followed is that the charges should be set to discourage an occupancy level of more than 85 per cent.; in other words, in theory, there should be 15 places out of every 100 available for one's car at a meter. At present, the occupancy rate is higher than 85 per cent., hence the necessity from time to time to uprate the charges in order to produce greater flexibility.
The hon. Member for Edmonton rightly said that we depend on the recruitment of more traffic wardens—although I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West in his early morning encounter with them. Equally, we must recognise that it is not a much sought-after job. Traffic wardens are abused by the public in general. We shall not have better recruitment until the public show a more sympathetic attitude to them. I am not sure that there is an early prospect of that happening.
We were all interested in the adventures of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West with his acupuncture kit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said, we are glad that he did not also acquire a do-it-yourself tattoo kit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West put forward the view that we should seek to enable more people to park in more places. In outer London that is a worthwhile and laudable objective. I am sure that his comments on Segas have been noted. However, we do not need the provisions of this Bill to persuade Segas to be a little more forthcoming in making car parking spaces available to my hon. Friend's constituents at weekends and other times.
I thank the House for the general welcome that the Bill has received. I hope that it can now go forward to the benefit of London as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — Redditch Development Corporation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Hal Miller: In welcoming my hon Friend the Minister to this short debate on the problems of Redditch new town, may I say that I share with him the pleasure that the debate has come on at such a seasonable hour and with a much greater attendance in the Gallery, if not in the House, than one is normally accustomed to on such occasions.
This is the seventh anniversary of my first Adjournment debate, which concerned the problems of designation of a new town. I make no apology for reverting to the problems of new town development corporations and those of Redditch in particular on this occasion. Ever since I served on the Standing Committee which considered the New Towns (Amendment) Bill and subsequently spoke on Report and Third Reading from the Front Bench, I have been greatly exercised about the problems of the transfer of assets arising from the Act.
Indeed, following enactment. I raised with my hon. Friend's predecessor as far back as 1977 the problems with which we are still faced. Today they are much more acute than they were. They have been the subject of frequent correspondence between my hon. Friend and myself, as well as, I have no doubt, between my hon. Friend and the authorities involved. I refer to the development corporations, the district and county councils and—I must not fail to mention them—the staff associations.
Because it was not possible for my hon. Friend to give an answer to those outstanding problems, about a year ago a decision was taken to postpone the date of the transfer of housing assets from April 1981 to April 1982, and similarly to postpone by one year the wind-up of the development corporation itself. I regret to report that there has still been no resolution of the outstanding questions. I fear that it will be necessary for my hon. Friend to consider a further postponement, or some other measure. I shall come to that later.
There is an urgency about the matter because there is a real fear that the continued progress of Redditch, in all its aspects, will be seriously impeded. That is a matter of widespread public concern. I quote from a recent editorial in The Birmingham Post:
With time running short, there are too many questions left unanswered so far as the local councils, ratepayers and the employees of the Development Corporation are concerned. Only an early Government statement, followed by prompt action, can remove the doubts and fears.
The questions that remain unanswered concern the transfer of housing assets, the community-related assets, the industrial and commercial assets, and the real problems for the staff involved. I shall attempt to treat those matters by reference to the district council, the county council, the development corporation and then the staff. In considering these matters I do not want to overlook the contribution made to the development of Redditch by the residents and those with businesses and professional practices in the town. We are sometimes inclined to overlook the fact that, however much we try. in our efforts here, and whatever the efforts of the local authorities in their planning, the final achievement of success inevitably depends on the residents themselves.
I turn to the problems facing the Redditch district council. They centre mainly on the transfer of housing assets. I use the word "assets" in inverted commas because the district council has come to consider them as liabilities, having heard horror stories about defects found in first generation housing stock about to be transferred. Having looked at the housing estates in Redditch I do not entirely agree with that description. Of the 7,000 houses involved I should be surprised if more than a small percentage were found to have serious defects. However, it is a matter of real concern for the district council. As a prudent authority, with a still slender budget, it is naturally concerned about the means available to cope with any unacceptable problems.
I want to emphasise that the district council's fear that it may come across unexpected defects is the reason why it has asked for help to conduct a survey of the state of the housing stock to be transferred. The main problem arises from the size of the present subsidy. Because so many of the corporation houses have been built recently, they are standing in the books at a much higher cost than the average council property. Therefore, a greater subsidy is presently paid by the Government. The argument centres on the financial arrangements that should be made to protect the ratepayers of Redditch from any sudden levy or additional charge as a consequence of the transfer.
The total additional cost has been estimated by the district council as amounting to as much as 16p on the rates. That may prove to be an exaggerated concern, but it illustrates why the council is so concerned. There was a great deal of discussion about the matter during Committee Stage of the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976. It is the reason why section 10 found itself in the original Bill, and was discussed at great length during its passage through the House. But there is still no firm indication on that matter. I shall revert to this point later.
Still on the subject of housing assets, there remain the staff, to whom I shall return under the corporation heading. There is uncertainty among the council staff as to how the joint staff will operate and when appointments can be made to the new organisation.
On the subject of community-related assets, again, severe financial penalties are feared by the district council—with good reason. There is a generous provision for parks. For example, generous landscaping and planting of open areas has been undertaken by the corporation on the basis of Government funds. These include amenities far more generous than the district council could have envisaged for its inhabitants. There is concern as to how these amenities are to be maintained in their present excellent shape.
There is a fear of further burdens. I refer to a recent report from the Health and Safety Executive to the district council requiring in one of the parks the provision of a shelter for park attendants with separate lavatory facilities for both sexes, including facilities for washing, changing and drying of clothes. Previously, in the event of heavy rain, a quick return to the depot had been adequate. Now these facilities are to be provided in the park. The mind boggles when one thinks of the provision which may be required in the Arrow Valley park once that is handed over to the district council.
The district council is of the opinion that some of the industrial and commercial assets should accrue to the

council to provide an asset base for its future operations. I do not share that view. We had a discussion on this matter on the Stevenage Development Authority Bill. I share the Government's view on that aspect, but I thought it only right to mention that the district council has a strong view on the subject and wishes representations to be made, and I am willing to make them.
The final matter concerns the arrangements for the rate support grant in view of the increasing work load that the district council is having to undertake to negotiate all these transfer arrangements. My hon. Friend has been struggling nobly to make progress on these outstanding questions. I understand that he put forward new proposals to the Association of District Councils in a letter dated 21 January and held a discussion with representatives as recently as 19 February. However, I have been asked to point out that the district council still has considerable reservations about my hon. Friend's proposals.
The council is concerned about the precedent set in respect of first generation new towns. Redditch is a second generation new town. Certain defects have been excluded from the investigations by the consultants appointed by the Government—the National Building Agency. It is still not clear about the financial basis on which reimbursement will be made for defects ultimately accepted as ranking for grant. There is a lack of clarity regarding the way in which provision for remedial works will be included in the housing improvement programme allocations.
More importantly, the council fears that future subsidies relating to the transfer of the dwellings will be subject to review on a year-on-year basis, whereas the discussion in Committee on the New Towns (Amendment) Bill referred to a tapering grant about the level of which there would be some certainty during the period that it was in force. That is an important concern for the district council.
The council also alludes to houses which are in such a bad condition that demolition should be considered, but I doubt whether that would apply to Redditch. However, it is trying to say that until the first generation disputes are settled, second generation towns are unlikely to agree to take on the transfer on a trust basis.
I have referred to the differences in levels of subsidy between council and corporation housing stock. That is why the council considers that such a specific formula is necessary in section 10 of the New Towns (Amendment) Act. There are real difficulties. Although my hon. Friend is making a strong and urgent attempt to solve the problems, there are still fears, as I have attempted to show.
The district council is concerned about the block grant formula. Apart from the work involved in negotiating the transfer provisions—which has extended over many years, as I have said—the council must also provide services in advance, over and above the immediate requirements which would otherwise be justified by the population. That is the principle on which infrastructure is provided in a new town by the develoment corporation. The council has therefore incurred higher expenditure than it would otherwise have done.
As in all matters affecting grants in such a rapidly growing area of population, the basis for calculating the grant never keeps up with the population growth. The council believes that more serious attempts should be made to obtain up-to-date population figures. That applies even more to other areas, such as that of the health provision.
The council is concerned that its target for reduced expenditure under the block grant formula is irrelevant, or, at least, does not reflect the growth with which it is faced. It has asked me to place great emphasis on the provisions for adjusting, at the end of the year, expenditure which has been incurred.
The county council is involved in social development, including social facilities, such as meeting rooms, and as the highway authority. There is an excellent system of social development officers who help new town residents settle into their surroundings. They have been particularly helpful in the development of residents' associations, which give a forum for expression of local energy, initiative and local opinion. I pay tribute to the work of those residents' associations.
However, those associations have been maintained with grants from the corporation, which the county council will not be funded to provide. The same is true of the work of the social development officers. The county council's social services department has been placed under the greatest strain by the fast growth of the new town. I shall not go into detail on that matter tonight, as I referred to it in an earlier speech. The development corporation's standard of landscaping and care of verges on the highways are greatly different from those of the county council. The highway authority will face an increased burden of maintenance for which there will be no recompense.
The development corporation is due to transfer its housing assets by April and to wind up by the end of September. It is still completing its plan of development, which is a considerable task. There are 480 houses for rent still to be let and 51 sites to prepare for a total of 2,000 houses for sale, as well as 26,000 square metres of land for industry and 9,400 square metres of office space. A real development programme is still being executed, with diminished staff and lowered morale.
The corporation's problems with the transfer of the houses are a mirror image of those of the council, but it has also been charged by the Department with the realisation of commercial and industrial assets. It was already engaged in a substantial programme of disposal of assets long before this Government came to power, but that was on the basis of disposal while retaining a proportion of the equity and the management function. It found that that was the most efficient, profitable and successful way of disposing of those assets.
There is now a concern about to which authority the rump of holdings and the management function should be transferred. I know that there is a doctrinal disagreement here, in that the Minister thinks that all the assets should be disposed of. Whatever view one may take of that, current leaseholders are reluctant in present economic circumstances to transfer their holdings into freehold, and the institutions are showing little enthusiasm for taking on a management function which, up to now, has been performed so economically and efficiently, particularly in the town centre. The corporation has a real problem in this respect.
There is also a staff problem. The staff are not only continuing the development function, as I have said, but now have a much more active management role as well as a role in disposing of the assets. At 31 January this year, the corporation had 332 staff in post. One suggested solution to the problem of the transfer of the housing to meet the Government's present deadline is an agency

arrangement. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend welcomed such a possibility, but he stipulated that the arrangement should terminate before the dates presently set for transfer and wind-up.
This presents a difficulty. I doubt whether the arrangements can be completed in the time available for the transfer, so there seems to be little point in concluding an agency agreement, despite the fact that a great deal of work has been put into it by the staffs of the corporation and the council. My hon. Friend has said that he would see little point in such an arrangement being concluded if agreement could not be reached by July of this year. I have to tell him that there is considerable doubt whether that date can be met.
One of the problems is that the redundancy terms for the corporation staff are different under an agency agreement from what they are under a straight transfer where the housing-related staff would qualify for the so-called Crombie terms. As it is understood, these terms are not available under the agency arrangement.
There is further confusion as to exact grades of staff covered by the Crombie terms because the term, "housing-related staff", is something of a term of art and would seem to exclude many grades that are actively concerned with housing while including some which, to most normal officers, would not appear to be related to housing. There is a need for my hon. Friend to re-examine the exact scope of those terms. This is having a very bad effect on staff morale at a time when their burden of work has increased enormously. This is one of the problems which I have welcomed the opportunity of raising in this debate.
I emphasise that all is not doom and gloom in Redditch by any means. There is considerable achievement in Redditch new town. I have paid tribute to those who have made this possible—the authorities, the residents and the businesses. What I am seeking from my hon. Friend is some assurances. First, if a decision on the terms of transfer of the housing assets cannot be reached soon—I have emphasised that the subsidy arrangements are not thought to be suitable as a replacement for the section 10 arrangements envisaged under the Act—he should either postpone once more by 12 months the target dates or allow an agency agreement to continue after the wind-up of the corporation under the aegis of whatever successor body takes over, whether it is a new town corporation or his Department, if that is legally possible.
Secondly, there should be early decisions about the successor body to hold the rump of the industrial and commercial assets and about the management functions in respect of those assets which are now of considerable value. It would be a great mistake to give rise to uncertainty and perhaps loss of value in those assets because of continuing indecision. Thirdly, there should be some adjustment to the block grant arrangements for the district council grant after the year end in the light of the arrangements promulgated at the time. Fourthly and lastly, the position of the staff should be looked into, both under the agency agreement and as to the coverage of the housing-related staff.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) for the very constructive way in which he raised this matter, for the care that he took in presenting to the House the four


strands of the problem that he sees in Redditch, and for conveying one or two of the issues about which the district council is concerned, although I noted that my hon. Friend did not necessarily, as he said, accept some of the reasoning that the district council had used. I know that many district councils that have new towns within their boundaries are somewhat apprehensive of what may happen when their new town development corporation is wound up. I know, too, that the staff of those development corporations are concerned about their future, and that uncertainty can be unsettling. But change is a natural and, I suggest, inevitable feature of life, and it should not be regretted.
Before I reply in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has made I should like to make two points—one about new towns in general and one specifically about Redditch.
We have every right to be proud of our new towns. Development corporations and their skilled and enthusiastic staffs have created in England 21 new towns—all different, and all delightful places. I have had the privilege of seeing them all on more than one occasion. But we believe very strongly that when the physical development has reached a certain stage—I shall not say "been completed", because no town is ever completed—new towns must become normal towns. That means that the private sector should play its full part in owning industrial and commercial property, as it does elsewhere.
I am glad that my hon. Friend made the very important point that in the end what new towns are all about is people. That is frequently overlooked by too many Government Departments. I am glad that my hon. Friend reminded us that people are the beginning and end of why all of us are even here.
This also means that people living there should have the same opportunities to own their own homes as people living in other towns, whether by buying the houses that they rent or by buying houses built by a private developer. It means also that the county and district councils should assume the full range of responsibilities that they have elsewhere and should maintain the level of services that they and their ratepayers think is right.
Redditch, like all new towns, is an attractive place. Unlike some new towns, its attractions are not entirely the work of the development corporation. Its town centre has been enlarged. Here I pay particular tribute to the development corporation and its staff, because that enlargement has come from a most attractive existing town centre.
I am certain that even if Redditch had not been designated as a new town in 1964 it would have seen considerable new development over the past 15 years—new shops, new housing and new offices. I do not say that it would have grown to the size that it is today, but it would have grown and, with that growth, the responsibilities and the expenditure of the local authorities would have increased. The growth has been greater, I suggest, because Redditch is a new town, but that greater growth has meant greater rateable value. That must not be overlooked by the rating authority.
It may be convenient if I deal first with housing. The terms for housing transfer are set out in the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976, which my hon. Friend, as a very diligent member of the Opposition, had the pleasure of helping to get on to the statute book. That Act provided

that where a district council takes over new town housing it is on the basis of the outstanding loan debt on that housing. What the district council, very rightly, wants to know is whether it will get any extra financial help towards the cost of taking over new town housing and whether, if the housing is in unsound condition, it will get help towards putting it right.
Let me deal first, very categorically, with the state of the houses. Unlike houses transferred to district councils in 1978, some of which were 25 years old, none of the houses built by Redditch development corporation is more than 13 or 14 years old. Officials of my Department have discussed with the development corporation whether any work is needed to put these houses into a structurally sound state before they are transferred. Some necessary work has been identified and is well under way. It is right that a prudent purchaser should satisfy himself that what he is buying is in sound condition, and I hope that the council is talking to the development corporation about the state of the houses.
I am informed that it would cost less than £50,000 to put the entire stock into perfect condition. Therefore, one should not exaggerate the problem, or in any way try to suggest that this has any relevance to the difficulties that the first generation has experienced.
I hope that Redditch is being realistic in its expectations about the state of houses that are not new. The market value of houses and flats now being sold by the development corporation ranges from £11,000 to £19,000. By the end of March 1982 the development corporation will have some 6,850 rented houses, and that average outstanding loan debt then will be about £11,500. By any standards, the council will be getting a bargain.
As my hon. Friend said, we have put proposals to the Association of District Councils which will mean that after transfer the district council's entitlement to housing subsidy will take account of both the extra reckonable expenditure resulting from transfer and the increased rent resources available. An allowance will also be made for any grant paid under the New Towns Act 1965 in the year preceding transfer to the development corporation towards its housing costs. Proposed detailed subsidy procedures for housing transfers between public bodies are set out in the "Outstanding Issues Consultation Paper", copies of which were placed in the Library last Friday.
It is our intention that the transfer of rented housing from development corporations should not place a major burden on the councils receiving the housing. That is not to say that the council may never be faced with the question of having to put up rents, or subsidise them from the rates as a result of viewing its enlarged housing stock as a whole. I realise, too, that the transfer of rented housing may well have implications for the rate support grant. We are now in touch with the associations about the rate support grant for future years and I hope that the local authorities will feed that point into the discussion.
I can sympathise with the council, which naturally wants to know where it stands. I understand that it is talking to the development corporation about the possibility of arrangements whereby the council would manage the development corporation's stock of rented houses before ownership is transferred to it. I very much hope that it will be possible very soon to achieve some such arrangement. It will enable the district council to get to grips with any problems that looking after a stock of over 11,000 houses, compared with its present stock of


about 4,200, might cause. It will also enable it to find out about and, I hope, reassure itself about, the state of the houses. It has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
My hon. Friend spoke about the morale of the development corporation staff. It is natural that some of them will see a future outside Redditch and will leave, although 1 understand that the number of staff who have so far left is not great. Uncertainty is not easy to live with, but, as I said earlier, it is sometimes unavoidable. I am sure that the district council will have this in mind when it is considering when to accept the transfer of housing. But I am certain that, even in this period of uncertainty, the staff of the development corporation will continue to give the same high quality service that they have always done.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend realise that the final redundancy notices will have to be issued by the corporation in September this year, that a further batch will be issued on 1 March, and that a subsequent batch will be issued on 1 May? There have already been considerable redundancies, so it is very difficult for the staff to carry out the increased work programme with fewer staff and a continuing uncertainty as to what the future arrangements will be. My hon. Friend has not, perhaps, quite appreciated the length of the redundancy notices involved. That is why I was pressing him for a decision about the length of the programme or the target dates.

Mr. Finsberg: I have, of course, realised the length of the notices involved, because this is not the first new town that we have dissolved. I know the various statutory periods that are involved. I can only say that, from the information available to me, it appears that staff are continuing to give a very high quality of service.
I now come to the question of the community-related assets. Some of these are leased by the development corporation to tenants—for example, club premises. We are considering whether, in these cases, the tenants should

be given the opportunity of acquiring the freehold. But others, such as parks—mentioned by my hon. Friend—are the sort of thing that are usually provided and held by local councils. We think that assets of this sort should pass to local authorities, and we are encouraging all development corporations—not just in the case of Redditch—to discuss this with their own local authorities. We shall need to do more thinking about terms and we accept the need to do it quickly.
I cannot accept—I am glad that my hon. Friend cannot either—that the commercial and industrial estates should be looked upon as assets that belong to the Redditch ratepayers. They were not created by the ratepayers and we think it is in the best interests of everyone that they should be privately owned.
Finally, I should like to say a word about standards. When the county and district councils assume in Redditch the full range of responsibilities that they have in other parts of their areas, it will be for them—I emphasise "for them"—to decide what standards they want to achieve. They will want to deploy their resources to the best possible advantage.
Where housing is concerned, one way for the district council to increase its own resources while, at the same time, lessening the calls on them, is to continue a vigorous sales policy.
I hope that this brief debate—at a civilised hour—will have gone some way to allaying the understandable anxieties of Redditch and will have answered some of the issues understandably in my hon. Friend's mind. I shall reflect very carefully on some of the detailed points that he has raised and bear those in mind when we are considering how best to take forward the dissolution in due course of Redditch new town.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Nine o'clock.